IMAGE  EVALUATION 
TEST  TARGET  (MT-3) 


1.0 

•-    1. 

I.I 

1.25 

1£ 

2.5 


IIM 


2.0 


1.8 


1.6 


^^/ 


^ 


/a 


Si 


^;. 


^ 


W 


'•/a 


w 


O'^A 


Hiotographic 

Sciences 
Corporation 


23  WEST  MAIN  STREET 

WEBSTER, NY.  14.«    0 

(716)  872-4503 


X 


'f^s> 


6 


CIHM/ICMH 

Microfiche 

Series. 


CIHM/ICMH 
Collection  de 
microfiches. 


Canadian  Institute  for  Historical  Microreproductinns  /  Institut  Canadian  de  microreproductions  historiques 


Technical  and  Bibliographic  Notes/Notes  techniques  et  bibliographiques 


The  Institute  has  attempted  to  obtain  the  best 
original  copy  available  for  filming.  Features  of  this 
copy  which  may  be  bibliographically  unique, 
which  may  alter  any  of  the  images  in  the 
reproduction,  or  which  may  significantly  change 
the  usual  method  of  filming,  are  checked  below. 


n 


Coloured  covers/ 
Couverture  do  couieur 


I      I    Covers  damaged/ 


Couverture  endommag^e 

Covers  restored  and/or  laminated/ 
Couverture  restaurie  et/ou  pellicul4le 

Cover  title  missing/ 

Le  titre  de  couverture  manque 

Coloured  maps/ 

Cartes  g^ographiques  an  r?u'  .ur 


D 
D 
D 

n 


n 


D 


Coloured  ink  (i.e.  other  than  blue  or  black)/ 
Encre  da  couieur  (i.e.  autre  que  bieue  ou  noire) 

Coloured  plates  and/or  illustrations/ 
Planches  et/ou  illustrations  en  couieur 

Bound  with  other  material/ 
Raiiii  avec  d'autres  documents 

Tight  binding  may  causa  shadows  or  distortion 
along  interior  margin/ 

Lareliure  serree  peut  cauLer  de  I'ombre  ou  de  la 
distorsion  le  long  de  la  marge  IntArieure 

Blank  leaves  added  during  restoration  may 
appear  within  the  text.  Whenever  possible,  these 
have  been  omitted  from  filming/ 
II  se  peut  que  certaines  pages  blanches  ajouties 
lors  d'une  restauration  apparaissent  dans  le  texte, 
mais,  lorsque  cela  itait  possible,  ces  pages  n'ont 
pas  iti  filmAes. 

Additional  comments:/ 
Commentaires  supplimentaires; 


L'Institut  a  microfilm^  le  meilleur  exemplaire 
qu'il  iui  a  iti  possible  de  se  procurer.  Les  details 
de  cet  exemplaire  qui  sont  peut-dtre  uniques  du 
point  de  vue  bibliographique,  qui  peuvent  modifier 
une  image  reproduite,  ou  qui  peuvent  exiger  une 
modification  dant  la  m*thode  normale  de  filmage 
sont  indiquAs  ci-dessous. 


r~~|   Coloured  pages/ 


Pages  de  uouleur 

Pages  damaged/ 
Pages  endommagdes 


□    Pages  restored  and/or  laminated/ 
Pages  restaur^es  et/ou  pelliculdes 


Pages  discoloured,  stained  or  foxed/ 
Pages  ddcoior^es,  tachetdes  ou  piquees 


□    Pages  detached/ 
Pages  ditachees 

0Showthrough/ 
Transparence 

E    Quality  of  print  varies/ 
Quality  in^gale  de  I'Impression 

□    Includes  supplementary  material/ 
Comprend  du  matiriel  supplementaire 

□    Only  edition  available/ 
Seule  Edition  disponible 


n 


Pages  wholly  or  partially  obscured  by  errata 
slips,  tissues,  etc.,  have  been  refilmed  to 
ensure  the  best  possible  image/ 
Les  pages  totalement  ou  partiellement 
obscurcies  par  un  fttuillet  d'errata.  une  pelure. 
etc.,  ont  4t6  filmies  i  nouveau  de  facon  a 
obtenir  la  meilleure  image  possible. 


This  ite.,!  is  filmed  at  the  reduction  ratio  checked  below/ 

Ce  document  est  filn-,*  au  taux  de  reduction  indSquA  ci-dessous. 

^°X  1« 18X  22X 


12X 


26X 


16X 


30X 


y 


20X 


24X 


28X 


32X 


The  copy  filmed  here  has  been  reproduced  thanks 
to  the  generosity  of: 

Yorit  University 
Toronto 
Scott  Library 

The  images  appearing  here  are  the  best  quality 
possible  considering  the  condition  and  legibility 
of  the  original  copy  and  in  keeping  with  the 
filming  contract  specifications. 


Original  copies  in  printed  paper  covers  are  filmed 
beginning  with  the  front  cover  and  ending  on 
the  last  page  v/ith  a  printed  or  illustrated  impres- 
sion, or  the  back  cover  when  appropriate.  All 
other  original  copies  are  filmed  beginning  on  the 
first  page  with  a  printed  or  illust;  ated  Impres- 
sion, and  ending  on  the  last  page  with  a  printed 
or  illustrated  impression. 


The  last  recorded  frame  on  each  microfiche 
shall  contain  the  symbol  -^  (meaning  "CON- 
TINUED"), or  the  symbol  V  (meaning  "END"), 
whichever  applies. 

IMaps,  plates,  charts,  etc.,  may  be  filmed  at 
different  reduction  ratios.  Those  too  large  to  be 
entirely  included  in  one  exposure  are  filmed 
beginning  in  the  upper  left  hand  corner,  left  to 
right  and  top  to  bottom,  as  many  frames  as 
required.  The  following  diagrams  Illustrate  the 
method: 


L'exemplaire  film6  fut  reproduit  grAce  d  la 
g4n6rnsitA  de: 

York  University 
Toronto 
Scott  Library 

Les  images  suivantes  ont  «t6  reprodultes  avec  ie 
pluj  grand  soln,  compte  tenu  de  la  condition  et 
de  la  nettetd  de  I'exemplaire  film*,  et  en 
conformit6  avec  les  conditions  du  contrat  de 
fllmage. 

Les  exemplalres  orlglnaux  dont  la  couverture  en 
papier  est  imprimte  sont  fllmts  en  commen9ant 
par  Ie  premier  plat  et  en  terminant  soit  par  la 
dernlere  page  qui  comporte  une  emprelnte 
d'lmpress^on  ou  d'illustration,  soit  par  Ie  second 
plat,  salon  Ie  cas.  Tous  les  autres  exemplaires 
origlnaux  sont  filmte  en  commenpant  par  la 
premiere  page  qui  comporte  une  emprelnte 
d'impression  ou  d'illustration  et  en  terminant  par 
la  dernlAre  page  qui  comporte  une  telle 
emprelnte. 

Un  des  symboles  suivants  appara!tra  sur  la 
dernlAre  image  de  cheque  microfiche,  selon  Ie 
cas:  Ie  symbols  — ^  signifie  "A  SUIVRE",  Ie 
symbols  V  signifie  "FIN". 

Les  cartes,  planches,  tableaux,  etc.,  peuvent  dtre 
fllm«s  &  des  taux  de  reduction  di^'ftrents. 
Lorsque  Ie  document  est  trop  grand  pour  Atre 
reproduit  en  un  seul  cliche,  il  est  fllmA  A  partir 
de  I'angle  supArleur  gauche,  de  gauche  A  droite, 
et  de  haut  en  bas,  en  prenant  Ie  nombre 
d'images  nAcessaire.  Les  diagrammes  suivsnts 
illustrent  la  mAthode. 


1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

'Tfl^W^B'*'" 


THE 


SDWSPILaiOiiVIB  SiSB^^fSBSS 


9 


THX 


FISHERIES  AND  THE  MISSISSIPPI. 


DOCUMENTS  RELATING  TO  TRANSACTIONS 


AT 


THE  NEGOTIATION  OF  GHENT. 


CoIlecUd  and  Publiibad 


BY  JOHN  QUINCY  ADAMS. 

ONE  OP  The  commissioners  op  the  united  state? 


AT   THAI   NEGOTIATION. 


WASHINGTON: 

PRINTED  BY   DAVIS  AND  FORCE,    TfRANKUn's  HEAD,) 
I'ENNSYLVANIA  AVENUE. 

••••■••• ••■•••(•• 
•••••■••■•«•«,«.. 

1822. 


i\ 


mmam 


wmmmm 


■V' 


a„ 


^n  vertisemejvt. 


To  facilitate  the  comparison  between  the  Original  and  DupU- 
cate  of  Mr,  RusseWs  Letter  of  llth  February^  ||i|  to  Mr. 
Monroe,  they  are  in  this  Collection  printed  in  corresponding 
pages,  with  the  variations  between  them  numbered  and  printed 
in  a  brevier  type.  The  passages  in  the  Ghent  Documents,  par- 
ticularly referred  to  in  the  subsequent,  discussion,  are  enclosed 
in  brackets. 


i 


^ 


1^ 


\x 


'•^'i'- '  'ifj'jgp^Ti'y!'^ 


ti 


INTRODUCTION. 


During  the  progress,  and  aAer  the  conclusion,  of  the  negotiatio* 
«t  Ghent,  despatches  were  at  three  several  periods  received  by  the 
executive  government  of  the  United  States,  from  their  plenipoten- 
tiaries  at  that  place.  The  documents  relating  to  the  negotiation, 
transmitted  by  the  first  and  second  of  these  occasions,  were  commu- 
nicated by  messages  from  the  President  of  the  United  States  to  Con- 
gress, and  thereby  became  generally  known  to  the  public.  They 
are  to  be  found  in  the  9th  volume  of  Wait's  State  Papers,  and  in  the 
7th  volume  of  Niles'  Register,  and  they  contain  the  correspondence 
of  the  American  mission,  as  well  with  their  own  government  as 
with  the  British  plenipotentiaries,  from  the  commencement  of  the 
negotiation  till  the  SIst  of  October,  1814.  The  third  messenger 
brought  the  treaty  of  peace  itself  The  correspondence  subsequent 
to  the  31st  of  October,  was  of  course  communicated  to  the  Senate 
with  the  treaty,  when  it  was  submitted  to  that  body  for  their  advice 
and  consent  to  its  ratification.  But  it  was  not  communicated  to 
Congress  or  made  public,  nor  was  there  at  that  time  manifested 
any  desire  to  see  it  either  by  the  House  of  Representatives  or  by 
the  nation. 

In  the  course  of  the  last  summer,  (of  1821,)  I  was  apprised  by  a 
friend,  that  rumours  very  unfavourable  to  my  reputation,  even  for 
integrity,  were  industriously  circulated  in  the  Western  Country. 
That  it  was  said  I  had  made  a  proposition  at  Ghent  to  grant  to  the 
British  the  right  to  rmvigate  the  Mississippi  in  return  for  the  New- 
foundland fisheries,  and  that  this  was  represented  as,  at  least,  a  high 
misdemeanor.  I  observed  that  a  proposition  to  confirm  both  these 
rights  as  they  had  stood  before  the  war,  and  as  stipulated  by  the 
treaty  of  1783,  had  been  offered  to  the  British  plenipotentiaries, 
not  by  me,  but  by  the  whole  American  mission,  every  one  of 


whom  had  subicribeil  to  it.  That  the  propoiial  (o  make  this  of< 
t'er  had  been  made  to  the  mission  not  by  me,  but  by  u  citizen  of 
the  Western  Country  :  that  it  was  warranted,  and  as  1  believed,  ab- 
solutely required  by  the  instructions  to  the  mission  at  the  time 
when  the  proposal  was  made  to  the  British  commissioners,  and  that 
if  I  had  felt  and  shown  great  solicitude  at  Ghent  for  the  fisheries, 
I  did  not  expect  it  was  to  be  imputed  to  me  as  an  offence,  ci* 
ther  in  my  character  of  a  servant  of  the  Union,  or  in  that  of  a  na- 
tive citizen  of  IVIaisachuaetts.  He  said  the  proposal  wns  at  all 
events  to  be  so  represented,  thnt  it  wan  charged  exclusively  upoD 
ne,  and  that  I  should  hear  more  about  it  ere  long. 

On  the  16th  of  January  last,  Mr.  Floyd,  a  member  of  the  House 
of  Representatives  of  the  United  States,  submitted  to  the  House  a 
resolution  in  the  following  words : 

**  Retolvtd,  That  the  President  of  the  United  States  be  requested  to  cause  to 
be  laid  before  this  House,  all  the  correspondence  which  led  to  the  treaty  of 
Ghent,  which  has  not  yet  been  made  public,  and  which,  in  his  opinion,  it  may 
not  be  improper  to  disclose." 

The  said  resolution  was  read,  and  ordered  to  lie  on  the  table 
one  day. 

The  proceedings  of  the  House  upon  it  the  next  day,  are  thus  re- 
ported in  the  National  Intelligencer  of  ttie  18th  of  January. 

Thursday,  January  I'.'tb,  1822. 
HOUSE   OF    REPRESENTATIVES. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Floyd,  the  House  proceeded  to  the  considera- 
tion of  the  resolution  offered  by  him  yesterday,  requesting  of  the 
President  of  the  United  States  "  all  the  correspondence  which  led 
to  the  treaty  ut  Ghent,  which  has  not  yet  beeki  made  public,  and 
which,  in  his  opinion,  it  may  not  be  improper  to  disclose.*'' 

Mr.  Floyd  remarked  that,  as  peace  was  now  restored,  there  was 
no  reason  why  the  whole  of  the  correspondence  which  led  to  the 
treaty  of  peace,  should  not  be  made  public.  He  therefore  modi- 
fied his  motion  by  striking  out  the  excepting  clause,  in  italic,  and 
inserting  after  the  word  "Ghent,"  the  words,  'together  with  the 
protocol."  He  would  also  observe,  that  the  bill  which  he  had  this 
day  reported  lo  the  House,  contemplated  a  very  considerable 
change  in  our  intercourse  with  the  Indian  tribes  in  the  West,  and 
it  appeared,  by  the  report  of  the  Secretary  of  War,  made  yester- 
day, that  'i  great  influence  was  exercised  over  thnse  tribes  by  our 
Kuropeau  neighbours  in  that  quarter.  The  correspondence  be- 
tween the  commissioners  at  Ghent  em!)raced  this  subject,  among 
others,  and  he  thought  it  was  .lesirablc  that  the  House  should  bf; 
in  possession  of  the  whole  of  it. 


mm 


mmmm 


Mn/^mrfMc-eiained  the  Howe  would  hare  no  objeciionto 
obtiining  the  in'brmatiort  alluded  to,  if  it  were  prciper  to  make  it 
public  ;  but  he  thought  it  would  be  proper  to  leave  the  President 
in  the  form  of  the  request,  the  option  of  communicatina  such  of 
the  correspondence  only  at  he  might  deem  it  not  improper  to  di«. 
close.     1  his  was  the  usual  form  adopted  by  the  JHTouse  and  il. 
though  peace  had  taken  place,  there  might  be  some  parts  of*lhe 
correspondence  which  it  would  be  improper  to  oublish.    An  on! 
limited  call  for  nil  the  information  in  the  possession  of  the  eovern 
ment  onthe  subject,  might  create  some  embarrassment,  and  be' 
hoped  the  mover  of  the  resolution  would  restore  it  to  its  original 

Mr.  Floyd  was  unwillir^,  by  any  act  of  his,  to  embarrass  the 
executive  ;  but  presumed  there  was  nothing  asked  for  in  this  reso 
lution  which  would  have  that  effect,  and  feeling  anxious  to  obtain 
all  the  information  on  his  subject  which  could  be  furnished,  be  pre- 
ferred the  motion  in  its  present  form.  If  the  motion  would  reach 
any  state  secret-admitting  there  ought  to  be  any  state  secret,  in 
this  government-he  wished  not  to  be  instrumental  in  disturbing 
Jt ;  but  he  anticipated  no  such  consequence.  * 

Mr.  Lowndes  rejoined,  in  subsiance,  that  although  five  or  six 
years  had  elapsed  since  the  restoration  of  peace,  it  did  not  follow 
that  all  that  passed  in  the  negotiations  was  Jroper  for  publ  cat^n 
Some  parts  of  the  correspondence  it  might  be  incompatible  with 
the  public  interest  to  disclose  to  the  worW ;  at  any  raK  wa^  p^o. 
per  to  except  such  as  the  President  might  deem  the  pubhrgood 
required  him  to  withhold.  Mr.  L.  therefore  moved  to  amLnd  ?he 
resolution  by  restoring  the  words,  -  and  which,  in  his  ^Monit 
may  not  be  improper  to  disclose."  opinion,  n 

Mr.  poyd  thought  there  was.  in  reality,  no  difference  between 
himself  and  the  gentleman  from  South  Carolina.  If  the  gent  Zn 
was  apprised  of  any  thing  which  it  was  improper  to  cL^muS 
to  the  fiouse.  to  be  sure  that  would  be  a  different  matter  bufff 
his  remarks  were  general,  and  had  reference  to  no  parEa,  facts 
.n  the  corrt^pondenc,  there  was  no  reason  for  the  amendment  ' 
The  question  being  taken,  the  amendment  was  agreed  o  and 
Thus  amended,  the  resolution  was  adopted,  and  a  commit^P^  nf 
two  appointed  to  carry  it  to  the  President.  committee  of 

On  this  debate  it  was  observable  that  the  mover  of  the  resolu- 
tion had  struck  out  the  usual  exception,  which  had  been  in  hie 
draft  of  ,t  presented  the  day  before,  of  such  papers  as  in  the  Pre- 
stent's  opinion,  it  might  be  improper  to  disclose ;  and  had  added 
the  words  "  together  with  the  protocol  -  which  had  not  been  in  the 
original  resolution.  The  words  of  exception  were  restored,  after 
debate  upon  the  motion  of  Mr.  Lowndes.  The  inferences  natu. 
rally  drawn  from  these  circomstances  were,  that  in  the  day's  inter- 


vmI  b«twc«n  tb«  offering  of  th«  rosolutioa,  ind  the  dobate  upon  it, 
•uggtitioni  hud  been  made  to  the  movei,  that  there  might  he  mo~ 
(ivei  opemting  upon  the  eiecutire,  for  withholding  preciaely  the 
infbrmeUon  that  wac  deaired,  unleu  the  whole  sliould  be  demand* 
ed  ;  and  that  a  requeat  for  the  correspondtnct  would  be  liable  to 
liiil  in  drawini  forth  the  momentoua  diacloaure,  unleaa  the  protocol 
•hould  alao  be  required.  Tbia  special  rererence  to  the  protocol, 
would  more  readily  occur  to  o  person  who  had  been  concerned  in 
the  oeKOtiation,  thnn  to  others,  and  the  debute  indicated  at  once 
•ome  eagerneaa  to  obtain  very  complete  information,  aome  appre- 
hensions that  paina  would  be  taken  to  auppreas  it,  and.  some  im> 
preasion,  that  the  evidence  of  the  material  fact  to  be  elicited  was 
lodged  in  the  protocol.* 

It  was  in  the  protocol  of  *he  conference  of  !«t  December,  1814, 
that  the  propeaal  made  to  the  British  plenipotentiarie*  relating  to 
the  IVfitmin'Sippi  and  the  fiaheriea  waa  contuined.  But  all  the  Ame- 
rican plenipotentinriea  had  been  preaent  at  that  conference,  and  on 
the  face  of  the  protocol  it  appeared  that  the  proposal  had  been 
made  by  them  as  a  joint  act  of  all.  There  waa  a  aubsequent  letter 
from  them  of  14th  December,  1814^  to  the  Bntiah  plenipotentia- 
ries, signed  by  all,  and  referring  to  it  aa  an  article  to  which  they  had 
no  ohjectionf  considering  it  at  merely  declaratory.  There  waa  nothing 
in  the  documents  showing  at  whose  instance  in  the  American  mis- 
sion, the  proposal  had  been  offered  ;  but  in  the  joint  letter  of  the 
mission  to  the  Secretary  of  State  of  2&th  December,  1814,  it  was 
stated  that  a  majority  of  the  mission  had  determined  to  offer  it,  and 
in  a  separate  letter  of  the  same  date,  Mr.  Kutisell  noticing  this  pas- 
ei^  of  the  joint  letter,  acknowledged,  in  candour,  that  Ae  had  been 
on  that  occasion  in  the  minority  ;  and  reserved  to  himself  there* 
ftAer,  the  power  of  assigning  his  reasons  to  vindicate  his  motives. 
It  will  be  seen  in  the  course  of  the  following  papers,  that  the  indi- 
cation in  the  joint  letter,  that  the  offer  had  been  made,  upon  a  de- 
terminatiou  of  a  majority,  had,  by  an  alteration  of  the  original  drafl 
been  inserted,  throut^h  the  agency  of  Mr.  Russell,  not  (as  he  stated) 
at  his  own  desiire,  but  at  that  of  Mr.  Clay  But  neither  Mr.  Clay, 
nor  any  other  member  of  the  mission,  save  Mr.  Russell,  had 
thought  it  necessary  at  the  time  tfi  inform  the  government  how  he 

*  Se«  in  the  Appendix,  Mr.  Floyd's  Letter,  publiilied  in  tlie  Richmond  En> 
quirer  of  27th  August,  1822,  and  the  remarks  upon  it. 


*  i 
1 1 


IF 


lad  Toted  on  the  qaeition,  or  to  Tindicate  hii  motiret  for  hit  vott. 
When  the  documents  called  for  by  the  resolution  oi  the  Hoaaci 
•f  17th  January,  1822,  wore  on  the  29d  of  February  commuuicatad 
by  the  memago  from  the  fresident,  they  did  indeed  ahow  that  tbia 
portentoui  proposal  had  been  mmle  ;  but  that  it  was  by  the  concar- 
rent  act  of  all  the  Americun  |jlcni|iotentiari«s.  They  also  showed 
that  upon  the  expediency  of  muking  the  proposal,  there  had  pre< 
viously  been  tuken  a  vote,  on  which  occcsion  Mr.  Russell  had  beeik 
in  the  minority.  The  documents  were,  by  order  of  the  House, 
bid  upon  the  table,  and  there  reposed  for  the  space  of  nearly  two 
months  till  the  18th  uf  April. 

In  the  mean  time  the  correspondence  from  Wnshin|;ton,  and  the 
newspapers  inrloctrinatcd  by  it,  had  not  been  equally  inactive. 
Through  these  channels,  the  public  were  assured  that  the  proposal 
of  offering  the  navigation  of  the  Missiuippi  for  the  fisheries,  had 
been  made  by  me ;  that  Mr.  CIny  had  uniformly  declared  that  he 
would  not  sign  the  treaty,  with  such  an  article  in  it ;  and  that  the 
proposal  had  been  finally  set  aside,  by  Mr.  Bayard's  having  chang- 
ed his  mind,  and  come  over  to  the  opinion  of  the  minority.  Not  one 
of  these  three  sttttements  was  true,  though  Mr.  Russell  has  since 
positively  asserted  the  second,  and  gone  still  further  than  the 
third,  by  alle^ng  that  the  proposal  was  actually  made  by  a  wmori- 
ty  of  the  mission,  against  the  will  of  Mr.  Bayard,  and  without  giv- 
ing him  notice  after  he  had  changed  his  mind. 

Nnne  of  these  allegations  could  derive  any  countenance  from  the 
documents  communicated  to  the  House,  under  their  resolution  of 
the  17th  ot  January.  But  Mr.  RuBsell's  letter  from  Paris  was  in 
reserve.  The  following  papers  will  show  how  it  was  finally  brought 
before  the' House,  together  with  a  new  edition  of  it  in  the  form  of 
a  duplicate ;  and  how  a  third  exemplar,  varying  from  both,  was 
presented  to  the  public,  in  the  National  Gazette  at  Philadelphia. 
The  duplicate  was  the  first  of  these  paperti  seen  by  me,  and  from 
the  moment  of  my  perusing  it,  I  could  be  no  longer  at  a  loss,  for  the 
origin  of  the  storm,  which  a  friendly  voice  had  warned  me  was  to 
burst  upon  me  from  the  West.  The  letter  was  a  tale  wrought  op 
with  the  ingenuity  of  a  novelist,  representing  the  proposition  made 
to  the  British  plenipotentiaries  on  the  Ist  of  December,  1814,  as 
a  deliberate  and  wanton  sacrifice  of  the  peace  and  security  of  the 
whole  Western  ami  Southern  section  of  the  Union,  for  the  doubtful 


If«^— ^ 


^"ir 


'< 


i;- 


accommodatioD  of  a  few  Eastern  tishermeu,  annuaMy  decreatiog  in 
number,  entirely  exempt  from  the  danger,  and  unsupported  by  any 
claim  of  right.     To  take  away  all  excuse  from  this  procedure,  it 
was  represented  as  having  been  pursued  by  the  majority,  in  wilful 
and  express  violation  of  the  instructions  to  the  mission,  as  under- 
stood by  themselves,  and  in  defiance  of  the  remonstrances  of  the  mi- 
nority; Mr.  Russell  represented  himself  as  having  inflexibly  opposed 
it  to  the  last,  and  ihe  whole  purport  of  the  letter  tended  to  the  im- 
pression that  he  bad,  in  the  deliberations  of  the  mission  at  Ghent, 
opposed  (he  measure  by  urging  against  it  nil  the  reasons  which 
were  set  forth  in  the  letter  itself.     There  was  withal,  a  profession 
of  unfeigned  respect  for  the  integrity,  talents,  and  judgment  of  the 
majority,  thus  represented  as  having  grossly  violated  their  own  sense 
of  their  duties,  and  been  prepared  to  lay  open  to  British  smugglers 
and  emissaries,  and  to  all  the  horrors  of  Indian  warfare,  the  unof- 
fending citizens  of  the  largest  portion  of  the  Union. 

No  one  member  of  the  majority  was  specially  named  in  Mr. 
Russell's  letter,  as  peculiarly  responsible  for  the  obnoxious  propo- 
sal, but  the  joint  letter  of  the  mission  to  the  Secretary  of  State,  of 
25th  December,  1814,  had  been  drawn  up  by  me.  Mr.  Russell, 
who  had  signed  it  without  discussion,  and  without  proposing  any 
alteration  to  it,  excepting  those  noticed  in  these  papers,  had,  as  ap- 
peared by  this  duplicate,  taken  it  as  the  text  for  an  adverse  com- 
mentary. The  joint  letter,  written  the  day  after  the  signature  of 
the  treaty,  to  be  despatched  with  it,  had  given  to  the  Secretary  of 
State,  a  concise  and  sununary  narrative  of  the  proceedings  of  the 
mission  since  the  31st  of  October,  1814,  the  date  of  their  last  pre- 
ceding despatch.  In  this  narrative  were  mentioned  the  circum- 
stances under  which  the  proposal  to  the  British  plenipotentiaries 
of  lat  December,  1814,  had  been  made  ;  the  reasoning  by  which 
it  bad  been  discussed  with  them,  the  counter-proposition  which  they 
had  offered  as  a  substitute  for  it,  and  their  final  acceptance,  in  its 
stead,  of  the  alternative  which  we  had  offered  with  it,  of  omitting 
altogether  the  article  by  which  they  would  have  abandoned  their 
claim  to  the  boundary  line  to  the  Mississippi.  It  was  to  the  rea- 
soning interwoven  with  this  narrative,  reasoning  which  had  been 
used  by  the  American  mission  in  debate  with  the  British  plenipo- 
tentiaries, and  as  adversaries  in  argument  to  them,  that  I  found  Mr. 
Russell's  duplicate  was  a  deeply-studied,  counter-argument.   He  had 


% 

"Wifclten.  after  tbe  c^i^d^*  .  of  the  treaty,  to  dMhat  for  the 
enemy  wh.ch  they  had  not  done  for  lhem.elv.,  ;  but  the  glaring 
fallacy  of  h.B  letter  w«,,  that  it  represented  that  which  had  beea 
urged  on  our  part  in  discuMion  ivith  them,  as  if  ii  had  been  a  nub- 
ject  of  debate  among  ourselves.     It  undertook  to  prove    that  the 
principles  which  we  had  asserted,  and  the  arguments  we  had  ur* -d 
to  the  British  commissioners,  in  support  of  our  fishing  liberties 
contested  by  them,  were  entirely  without  foundation  ;  that  we  had 
no  nght  to  the  fishing  liberties,  and  no  right  even  to  advance  a  claim 
to  them  ;  and  that  these  had  been  among  his  reasons  for  refusing 
dipra'te."*  *°  '^'  ^'"^°'"^  "^"  '^'P"'"^'*^"  '^^  ««<^"''»K  'hem.  The 

*•  Tain  ficti,  pravique  tenax,  quam  n-jncia  veri," 
Wedded  with  these  misrepreoentations,  the  objections  which  Mr. 
May  bad  made,  not  only  against  the  proposal  wh.  h  was  offered 
but  against  an  article  which  never  had  been  offered,  and  alleged  m 
capping  the  climax  of  all  Mr.  Russell's  reasons  agai,.,t  the  propc 
sals,  that  .t  was  in  express  violation  of  instructions  wUch  had  been 
ccncelled  before  the  proposal  was  made. 

Heterogeneous   and  incongruous  as  were  these  materials,  they 
had  obviously  been  mixed  up  with  the  design  of  exciting  the  re- 
sentment  and  indignation  of  the  Western  and  Southern  sections  of 
the  Union  against  the  offer  made  to  the  British  plenipotentiaries 
^nd  against  those  by  whom  it  had  been  proposed.     When  the  ori- 
ginal  letter  from  Paris  was  found,  a  comparison  of  it  with  .he  du- 
plicate  disclosed  this  design  in  still  broader  light.    All  the  new  pa- 
ragraphs had  a  direct  tendency  either  to  aggravate  the  criminality 
and  injustice  of  the  majority,  or  to  make  special  claims  for  the 
writer  to  Western  favour  and  gratitude,  or  to  deprecate  by  Oatterimr 
compliments  the  resentments  of  the  Eastern  fishing  interest     To 
any  person  unacquainted  with  the  real  transactions  at  the  n-^gotia- 
tion  of  Ghent,  the  composition  was  mingled  with  so  much  address 
and  plausibility,  that  it  was  eminently  calculated  to  produce  its  ef- 
fect.   It  was  difficult  to  suppose  that  the  Ghent  documents,  and  this 
letter  in  particular,  bad  been  called  forth  from  their  slumbers  of 
seven  years  for  any  other  purpose. 

There  were  circumstances  of  a  peculiar  nature,  imposing  upon 
me  the  obligation  of  meeting  this  accusation  at  once,  and  in  the 
most  explicit  mauner.    The  documents  called  for  by  the  House  in 

1  • 


-■)?*• 


10 


? 


tbeir  fi.st  resolution  of  27th  January,  were  to  be  furnished  Irom  the 
Department  of  State  ;  and  some  mistrust  had  been  discovered,  that 
there  would  be  a  disposition  there  to  withhold  some  of  them.  The 
second  call,  was  for  a  paper  known  not  to  be  forth-co*  ing  from 
thence,  until  it  should  be  furnished  by  Mr.  Russell  himself;  for 
which  he  had  taken  care  to  be  prepared.  Mr.  Russell,  too,  by  ob-< 
serving,  when  he  delivered  it  at  the  Department,  that  he  was  in^ 
different  whether  it  should  be  communicated  or  not,  but  if  not,  that 
he  wished  it  might  be  returned  lo  him,  evidently  disclosed  a  suppo- 
sition on  his  part,  that  I  should  feel  reluctant  at  the  communication 
of  it  to  the  House — that  I  should  shrink  from  the  exhibition  of  its 
contents  to  the  world.  My  official  duty  was  to  report  it  to  the  Pre- 
sident for  communication  to  the  House,  and  if  precluded  from  the 
privilege  of  remarkinp  upon  it,  I  should  have  been  reduced  to  the 
singular  predicamen  of  being  made  the  silent  reporter  of  my  own 
condemnation.  A  deceased,  and  an  absent  colleague,  were  impli- 
cated in  the  charges  of  the  letter,  apparently  as  much  as  myself. 
Could  I  in  justice  to  myself,  I  could  not  in  duty  to  them,  be  the 
bearer  of  these  imputations  to  the  Legislative  Assembly  of  the  na- 
tion, without  declaring  them  to  be  unfounded.  I  did,  therefore,  in 
reporting  the  paper  to  the  President,  request  that  in  the  communi- 
cation of  it  to  the  House,  it  might  be  accompanied  by  my  Remarks. 
The  following  pages  will  show  the  sequel. 

In  the  collection  of  these  papers,  however,  the  defence  and  jus- 
tification of  myself  and  my  colleagues  of  the  majority,  forms  but  a 
secondary  purpose.     Its  primary  intention  is  to  prove — 

1.  That  the  principle  assumed  by  the  American  mission  at 
Ghent,  st  the  proposal  of  Mr.  Clay,  atfd  in  a  paragraph  drawn 
up  by  him  that  the  rights  and  liberties  of  the  people  of  the 
United  States  in  the  North  American  fisheries,  were  not  abro- 
gated by  the  war  of  1812,  was  a  just  and  sound  prir.jiple,  en- 
tirely conformable  to  the  law  of  nations. 

2.  That  the  article  first  offered  by  Mr.  Gallatin,  which  was  not 
proposed  to  the  British  plenipotentiaries,  and  the  amendment 
to  the  8th  article  of  the  project,  also  offered  by  Mr.  Gallatin, 
which  was  actually  proposed  to  the  British  plenipotentiaries, 
And  by  them  rejected,  was  only  a  declaratory  recognition  of 
that  same  principle,  applied  to  the  British  right  of  navigating 
the  Mississippi,  as  well  as  to  our  fishery  rights  and  liberties. 


11 


3.  That,  considered  even  on  the  narrow  ground  of  conflicting 
sectional  interests,  this  article  and  amendment  proposed  to 
place  the  East  and  the  West  in  the  same  state  as  before  the 
war  ;  without  gain  to  one  or  loss  to  the  other, 

4.  That  the  objection,  by  the  minority,  against  the  article  and 
amendment,  insisted,  in  principle,  upon  the  sacrifice  of  ao 
Eastern  for  the  benefit  of  a  Western  interest. 

5.  That  the  Eastern  interest  to  be  sacrificed,  was  of  very  great 
importance  to  the  Union,  and  of  vital  magnitude  to  the  State 
of  Massachusetts ;  while  the  Wesfern  interest,  for  which  it 
waa  to  be  immolated,  was  altogether  speculative  and  imagina- 
ry. It  was  most  truly  denominated,  b3r  the  member  of  the 
mission  now  no  more,  bragging  a  million  against  a  cent. 

If,  therefore,  the  letter  of  Mr.  Russell,  of  lUh  February,  1815, 
from  Faris,  had  been  the  real  exposition  of  the  motives  of  the  mi- 
nority, for  objecting  to  the  proposed  article  and  amendment  of  Mr, 
Gallatin,  its  whole  foundation,  both  of  law  and  of  fact,  failing,  would 
have  left  the  minority  without  any  justification  for  their  votes  what- 
soever.    With  regard  to  the  comparative  value  of  the  two  interests 
in  quesUon,  it  was  impossible  for  the  minority  with  more  sincere 
and  deep  conviction  to  believe  the  views  of  the  majority  to  be  er- 
roneous, than  the  majority  thought  those  of  the  minority  to  be  so. 
But  it  never  entered  into  my  head,  and  never  eould  have  entered 
mto  my  heart,  to  treasure  up  these  errors  of  opinion  for  after-use 
against  a  colleague  of  the  mission  ;  to  "  set  in  a  note-book,  con,  and 
learn  by  rote,"  opinions  expressed  in  the  mutual  confidence  of  as- 
sociates in  a  great  national  trust,  in  order  to » ring  them  forth,  after 
many  years,  as  engines  to  ruin  a  rival  reputation. 

But  the  letter  from  Paris  was  no  exposition  of  the  opinions  which 
had  been  manifested  by  the  minority  at  Ghent.  The  principle, 
that  the  fishing  liberties  had  not  been  abrogated  by  the  war.  had 
been  asserted  by  the  mission  at  Ghent,  on  the  proposal  of  Mr.  Clay 
The  refutation  of  it  is  the  most  heavily  laboured  part  of  the  letter 
from  Paris.  If  individual  opinions  upon  the  expediency  of  particu- 
lar  measures  adopted  by  the  mis.,  n,  are  to  be  made  the  test  of 
merit  or  demerit  for  individual  members  of  the  mission,  it  is  not  a 
little  whimsical  that  Mr.  Russell,  for  the  minority,  should  now  dis- 
claim the  principle  adopted  at  the  motion  of  one  of  them,  and  which 


has  been  completely   successful  in  nmintaioiiiir  t! 


the  interest  in  dc 


12*         . 

fence  of  which  it  was  advanced,  and  pin  all  their  claims  of  superior 
service  upon  their  ineffectual  opposition  to  a  proposal  which  they 
did  actually  concur  in  making,  and  which  failed,  not  in  consequence 
of  their  objections,  but  because  the  enemy  disdained  to  accept  it. 
If  by  the  sturdiness  of  their  adherence  to  their  opinions,  they  had 
prevented  the  proposal  from  being  made,  there  might  have  been 
8ome  semblance  of  a  claim  to  credit  from  those  who  tremble  at  the 
sight  of  an  Englishman  afloat  upon  the  Mississippi.     If  the  enemy 
had  eagerly  snatched  at  the  offer,  and  British  emissaries,  British 
smu^Iers,  and  Indian  wars,  had  swarmed  upon  us,  in  consequence, 
the  minority  might  have  had  some  apology,  for  disengaging  tl^eir  re- 
sponsibility to  the  act,  and  casting  upon  their  colleagues  of  the  ma. 
jority  all  its  evil  report.     But  bo  far  as  the  proposal  could  possibly 
have  operated  mischief,  they  are  answerable  for  it  by  their  con- 
currence.    So  far  as  the  immediate  rejection  of  the  proposal  by  a 
clear-sighted  enemy,  can  test  its  possible  consequences,  the  event 
affords  as  little  cause  for  the  minority  to  glory  in  their  foresight,  as 
their  assent  to  what  they  tfiought  so  pernicious,  gives  them  reason 
to  be  proud  of  their  firmness.     A  loud  call  upon  the  nation  to  dis. 
criminate  between  the  profound  wisdom  and  comprehensive  pa- 
triotism of  the  minority,  and  the  dulness,  absurdity,  and  contracted 
spirit,  or  treachery,  of  the  majority,  could  scarcely  rest  on  weaker 
grounds,  than  upon  the  aversion  of  the  minority  to  principles  which 
they  nevertheless  did  sanction  ;  and  upon  their  arguments  against 
measures  to  which  they  did  subscribe  their  names.     The  majority 
have  asked  for  no  discrimination.     As  one  of  them,  I  have  as  little 
desire  to  conceal,  as  to  proclaim,  my  separate  agency  in  the  transact 
tions  of  the  mission,  or  my  vote  upon  any  measure  discussed  by 
them.    I  ask,  only,  not  to  be  misrepresented. 


JOHN  QUINCY  ADAMS. 


21st  September,  182'2'. 


CORRESPONDENCE  WHICH  LED  TO  tHE  TREATY  OF 

GHENT. 


Etlracifr^  ^  Journal  of  the  House  of  RepreHnlalivc  of  ihe  United  Statu. 

JANUART  16,  1822, 
Mr.  Floyd  submitted  the  following  resolution   vis  • 

Ghent,  which  has  nm  Jl^  "„  .td^pubrtXS 'i^  '""  ^^""^  °' 

not  be  improper  to  disclose.  ^        '  **"''"'  "*  *"■  opinion,  it  n^f 

Th4  said  resolution  was  read  and  ordered  to  lie  on  the  table  one  day. 

JTAWeART  17,   1822. 
On  motion  of  Mr.  Floyd, 

The  House  proceeded  to  consider  the  rcso'.ution  submitted  hv  ».5™      -    ^ 
and  the  same  being  again  read,  and  modified  to  read  aTfofloJ?-'"'"  ^"""'^'^y* 

Resolved,  Tliat  the  President  of  the  United  States  h«  «„....'.  ^ 
belaid  before  this  House,  all  the  corresponln  fwhLh  len  th.V''""  '" 
Ghent,  together  with  the  Protocol,  which'has  norye^b^Vma^e  itlle'"*^  "* 

?o^^te"n^J:ret^a:iSt^^etnS 


To  the  House  of  Representatives  of  the  United  States: 

suance  of  a  resolution  of  the  House  of  the  1 7th  oTrnuirV  1 J 
■     Washingtci,  21,t  February,  1822.  ^^^^  MO/rOE.* 


Department  of  State, 
rri.     «  -  Washington,  21st  Feb.  18M 

ing  the  President  of  the  United  States  to  caLe  lo  be  l.-'Ph'  f"^''T 
The  President  of  the  United  States.         ^^^^  ^^^^^^  ^^^MS. 


It ' 


1 

1 

i 

'£■- 

■>, 

i 

f 
I, 

i^■ 

« 

1 

i 

1  ' 

. 

i 

j^    . 

M- 

i'"^ 

1 

'< 

) 

■ 

I 

• 

I    ' 

14 


CORRESPONDENCE,  &c. 


American  Note  No.  6,  in  amixer  to  British  Note  No.  6. 

Ghent,  November  10,  1814 

The  undersigned  have  the  honour  to  acknowledge  the  receipt 
of  the  note  addressed  to  them  by  His  Britannic  Majesty's  Plenipo- 
tentiaries,  on  the  31st  ultimo. 

The  undersigned  had  considered  an  interchange  of  the  project 
of  a  treaty  aa  the  course  best  calculated  to  exclude  useless  and  de- 
sultory discussion,  to  confine  the  attention  of  both  parties  to  the 
precise  object  to  be  adjusted  between  the  two  nations,  and  to  has- 
ten the  conclusion  of  the  peace  so  desirable  to  both.  Finding,  in 
the  note  of  the  British  plenipotentiaries  of  the  [21st}  ultimo,,  a  mere 
reference  to  the  points  proposed  by  them  in  the  first  conference, 
with  the  offdr  of  assuming  the  basis  ofuti  possidetis,  on  which  the 
undersigned  bad  in  substance  already  declined  to  treat  ;  they  did 
not  consider  it  as  the  project  of  a  treaty  presented  in  compliance 
with  their  request.  They  proposed,  in  their  note  of  the  24th  ulti- 
mo, that  the  exchange  of  the  two  projects  should  be  made  at  the 
same  time.  And  it  is  not  without  s6me  surprise,  that  the  under- 
signed observe,  in  the  note  to  which  they  now  have  the  honour  of 
replying,  that  the  British  plenipotentiaries  consider  their  note  as 
containing  the  project  of  a  treaty,  to  which  the  undersigned  are 
supposed  to  be  pledged  to  return  a  counter-project. 

Believing  that  where  both  parties  are  sincerely  desirous  of  bring- 
ing a  negotiation  to  a  happy  termination,  the  advantage  of  giving 
or  of  receiving  the  first  drafl  is  not  of  a  magnitude  to  be  made  a 
subject  of  controversy,  and  convinced  that  their  government  is  too 
sincerely  desirous  of  that  auspicious  result  to  approve  of  its  being 
delayed  for  a  moment  upon  any  question  of  etiquette,  the  under- 
signed have  the  honour  to  enclose  herewith  the  project  of  a  treaty, 
accompanied  th  some  observations  upon  several  of  the  articles, 
which  may  more  fully  elucidate  their  object  in  proposing  them. 

The  British  plenipotentiaries  stated,  in  their  last  note,  that 
they  had  no  other  propositions  to  offer,  nor  other  demands  to  make, 
than  those  contained  in  their  note  of  the  21st  ultimo,  which,  with 
the  reference  to  their  former  declaration  respecting  the  fisheries, 
contains  only  two  propositions,  viz  :  that  of  fixing  the  boundary 
from  the  Lake  of  the  Woods  to  the  Mississippi ;  and  that  of  adopt- 
ing, with  respect  to  the  other  boundaries,  the  basis  oi  uti  possidetis, 

*\\n  answer  to  the  declaration  made  by  the  British  plenipoten* 
tiaries  respecting  the  fisheries,  the  undersigned,  referring  to  what 
passed  in  the  conference  of  the  9th  August,  can  only  state  that  they 
are  not  authorized  to  bring  into  discussion  any  of  the  rights  or  li- 
berties which  the  United  States  have  heretofore  enjoyed  in  relation 

*  Paragraph  drawn  by  Mr.  Clay,  and  inserted  at  hU  proposal. 


I 


15 

thereto.    From  their  nature,  and  from  the  peculiar  character  of 

the  treaty  of  1783,  by  which  they  were  recognised,  no  further 

stipulation  has  been  deemed  necessary  by  the  government  of  the 

United  States,  to  entitle  them  to  the  full  enjoyment  of  all  of  them.] 

The  undersigned  have  aready,  in  their  last  note,  explicitly  de- 

cMned  treating  on  the  basis  of  uti  possidetis.     They  cannot  agres 

to  any  other  principle  than  that  of  mutual  restoration  of  territory, 

and  have  accordingly  prepared  an  article  founded  on  that  basp* 

They  are  willing  even  to  extend  the  same  principle  to  the  other 

objects  in  dispute  between  the  two  nations  ;  and  in  proposing  all 

the  other  articles  included  in  this  project,  they  wish  to  be  distinctly 

understood,  that  they  are  ready  to  sign  a  treaty,  placing  the  two 

countries,  in  respect  to  all  the  subjects  of  difference  between  them, 

in  the  same  state  they  wevp:  in  at  the  commencement  of  the  present 

war  ;  reserving  to  each  party  all  its  rights,  and  leaving  whatever 

may  remain  of  controversy  between  them,  for  future  and  pacific 

negotiation. 

The  British  plenipotentiaries  haviijflr,  in  their  note  of  the  4th  of 
September,  communicated  the  disposition  of  their  government  to 
receive  favourably  a  proposition  which  should  acknowledge  the 
boundary  from  the  Lake  ofthe  Woods  to  the  Mississippi,  or  to  dis- 
cuss any  other  line  of  boundary  which  might  be  submitted  for  con- 
sideration, the  undersigned  answereil,  that  as  soon  as  the  proposi- 
tion  of  Indian  boundary  should  be  disposed  of,  they  would  have  no 
objection,  with  the  explanation  given  by  the  British  plenipotentia- 
ries, to  discuss  the  subject. 

The  government  of  the  United  States  had,  prior  to  the  acquisi- 
tion  of  Louisiana,  been  disposed  to  agree  to  the  boundary,  from  the 
Lake  ofthe  Woods  to  the  Mississippi,  from  a  wish  not  only  to  ar- 
range that  subject,  but  also  to  settle,  in  a  definitive  manner,  the 
differences  respecting  the  boundary  and  islands  in  the  Bay  of  Pas- 
samaquoddy  :  and  its  assent  to  the  proposed  stipulation  of  that 
boundary  was  refused  on  account  of  the  acquisition  of  Louisiana 
the  boundaries  of  which  might  haye  been  affected  by  it.  The  un* 
dersigned  cannot  agree  to  fix  the  boundaries  in  that  quarter,  unless 
that  of  Louisiana  be  also  provided  for  in  the  arrangement  Thev 
accordingly  submit  for  consideration  the  article  on  that  subject 
which  appears  to  have  been  agreed  on  between  the  British  and 
American  commissioners  in  the  project  of  convention  of  the  year 

In  respect  to  the  intended  review  of  the  other  boundaries  be- 
tween  the  British  and  American  territories,  with  the  view  to  pre 
vent  future  uncertainty  and  dispute,  the  undersigned  propose  the 
reference  of  the  whole  subject  to  commissioners  ;  and  thev  ore- 
Bent  accordingly  five  articles,  drawn  on  the  principles  fonnerlv 

ntf  St.  ^r'^x/'^''  ^°''^''"  *'°'  '""''"^  ^^^  ^"''*'°''  ^W^^^tiogthe 
;-  ^\^  f  j""-^  already  agreed  on,  respecting  the  Indian  pacification 
if  wcluded  m  the  project  ofthe  undersigned.    In  confSrmitJ  with 


?08imS*I„HT'"°"'  *?iy  °^*'*  T^^'^'^  '''''''^''^  *«  '•««t'-^'^™  the 

nosti  itiefl.  and  to  prevent  the  employment,  of  the  sayages  in  war 
and  one  reciprocally  granting  a  general  amnesty.  ^         ^  ' 

jp  *;     T  ^  other  subjects  which  have  been  presented  by  the  un- 

Keeping  in  viewr  the  declaration  made  by  lord  Castler-airh  in 
te"r  rr/ilh  r'  ''.^"S'"*'  ''''^  toMr.^iilllS  n  h?s  I'e^ 
Propose  onti,,r'°'^^'"'  *''^'  *^  ^'-  ^«"^««'  ^^^^  undersigned 
SXor  nrLn  .  P"?'^  f  *'"^'  *''^*^^'^«^'  '^'^hout  affecting%he 
by  means^pll  E"'*°^  *'*^''"  '°"''*''y'  *°  «"«•"?*  ^o  accomplish, 
ha«Ser  tohiln  t  *^  1?"*'°"'  ^^^  °*'J««  for  '^hi'^h  impressmen 
Hed  trpL.  ?K*^°''«^*  necessary  by  Great  Britain.  The  pro- 
i«ch  dS[v  ,^n"L  K°^  T']y  conditional,  and  limited  in  duraUon. 
eacij  party  mil  be  bound  only  so  far,  and  so  long,  as  the  other  shall 

fomUv  w!Jh  !h?'P''' -"f  ^'""^l^"' "  ^^"«^«^  t°  be  in  perfect  con- 
LvToth  nlttn,  ^'r^r^l^l'^f '^^  '^'^  «f  °«tion«.  ««  acknowledged 
1801  hp?»?  o  Tb«  'Jf^^P't'on  i«  borrowed  from  the  treaty  of 
S  frTmTh.  '"''.^"i"'" '"''  Russia,  and  the  residue  of^e 

JrrJlf/*'''**'"^  *°  indemnities,  consists  of  two  i.arts  :  the  first  for 
iiregular  seizu,  es,  captures,  and  condemnations  of  American  pro 
?rn.r,«?!:*'"^  *°  ^^^  established  laws  and  usages  of  ™at,ons  pre. 
rrregXui:^^^^^^^  ^'^  '  ^^^  the^econd  t  sim'i  a" 

Md  eSilhpH  "  'l"""^  ^''^  '^^^'  ''"^  <^o"t^»''y  to  the  known 

MsesofthP  fii  ''^r  *'^'^^''-  ''«*'^«^"  civilized  nations.  The 
United  Sute,h/PP'^  delusively  to  claims  of  the  citizens  of  the 
fi„»i  K   S.     '  ?^?»"8e,  the  cat  ses  of  such  claims  were  then  con- 

fumed  C^'hfR'vl'"^*"   '^''''  P^^"««'  *°  -^  «'"-•    It  ^  pre 
iW»if  ®''''."**  government  will  itsglf  be  sensible  of  the 

in  S^hI""' f  °^-  '"'^r""y  f«^  '"J""««  •^^""'"itted  by  it   officers 
n  violation  of  principles  avowed  and  recognised  by  itself   pS' 

r\  '?ov^^  '^"*'''  f™°^  'ord  Hawkesbury  to  Mr  K  „/of  n?h 
t'n  ',m'"V.V*;V''°'"  ^^-  MerryfoMr  wi  ol'of  2th 

of  SrSoo  *"h'''  ^^•''"  '"  i^°""^"'  °f  November.  1807.  and 
beenTsnpSi        undersigned  will  observe,  that  these  hWinJ 

Stei?  S  havtl";..   '  T""'  "*"  r'^"^"^"  «g«'"«t  France,  anl 
nieir  oDject  having  altogether  ceased,  it  is  just  to  indemnify  the 


ini 


17 

citizens  of  the  United  States  for  losses  experienced  by  the  effect  6f 
measures  intended  to  operate  against  the  enemy  of  Great  Britain, 
and  wh.ch  fell  almost  exclusively  on  a  country,  which  was  no  party 
to  the  war.  The  United  States  have  never  ceased,  and  at  this  timJ 
contmue  to  demand,  from  France,  indemnity  for  the  losses  thev 
have  experienced  by  the  effect  of  the  decrees  of  her  government 
ID  Violation  of  the  law  of  nations.  verameni, 

K  J*lt  ""i!" If  •'^  ^^^  '^'^""'^  »'"•'*  **^  '^'«  ^''ticle  apply  equally  to 
both  the  belligerent  parties.  They  have  been,  diring  the  war 
subjects  of  criminiilion  on  both  fides.  The  American  government 
can  give  no  stronger  and  more  signal  proof  of  its  disfmprobation  of 
every  departure,  under  colour  of  its  authority,  from  the  established 
usages  of  legitimate  warfare  between  civilized  nations,  than  by  the 
oiler  of  mutual  reparation. 

The  article  fixing  a  limitation  for  captures  at  sea,  does  not  seem 
to  require  any  comment. 

The  undersjped  present  their  entire  project  in  this  specific 
form,  with  the  full  expectation  of  receiving  from  the  British  pleni- 
potentiaries their  explicit  answer  respecting  all  the  articles  embra- 
ced in  It,  and  a  project  also  reduced  to  specific  propositions,  and 
embracing  all  the  objects  which  they  intend  to  bring  forward 

ihe  undersigned  renew  to  the  British  plenipotentiaries  the  as- 
surance of  their  high  consideraUon.  s  "le  as 

JOHN  QUINCY  ADAMS, 
J.  A.  BAYAKD, 
HENRY  CLAY, 
JONATHAN  RUSSELL, 

To .».»  PI    •    .     •    .  ALBERT  GALLATIN. 

To  the  Plenipotentiaries  of  His  Britannic 

Majesty,  &c.  &c.  &c.  Ghent. 


^Vji7pr'*i'V''''^^y  ^-^^^"^  s«6m»«ediy  the  A^nerican  to  the 
British  Plempotenttanes  at  Ghent,  on  the  lOthday  of  Nov  1814. 

Treaty  of  Peace  and  Amity  between  his  Britannic  Majesty  and  the 
United  States  of  America. 

His  Britannic  Majesty  and  the  United  States  of  America  desirous 
of  terminating  the  war  which  has  unhappily  subsisted  between  7he 

Z  XlT' 'H\°^"^r'"^rP°"  P'^^'P'^^  of  perfecrrecipro' 
tr'IT  '  friendship  and  good  understanding,  between  them,  have 
fsLtv  P"^P°!f'«PP«"»ted  their  respective  plenipotentiaries,  that 
hi  ^  K.  '/  ^"tf«'c  Majesty  on  his  part  has  appointed  thr right 
honourable  James  Lord  Gambier,  admiral  of  the  White  Squadron 
l2l'  f^W  ^''*'  """"^y  Gon^^^vn,  Esquire,  a  membe!  of  [he 
i7mrL  n'T"*  f;?.  V°?«>^  Secretary  of  State,  and  William 
Adams,  Esq.  Doctor  of  Civil  Laws  ;  and  the  President  of  the  Uni" 


.d 


18 

ed  States,  by  and  with  the  advice  and  consent  of  the  Senate  thereof, 
has  appointed  John  Q.mncy  Adams,  James  A.  Bayard,  Henry  Clay, 
Jonathan  Russell,  and  Albert  Gallatin,  citizens  of  the  United'State's. 
who,  after  a  reciprocal  communication  of  their  respective  full 
powers,  have  agreed  upon  the  following  articles  : 

Article  I.  There  shall  be  a  firm  and  universal  p?ace  betw«>en 
his   Britannic  Majesty  and  the  United  States,  and  between  their 
respective  countries,  territories,  cjties,  towns,  and  people  of  every 
degree,  ■viMiout  exception  of  persons  or  places.     All  hostilities 
both  by  sea  and  land  shall  immediately  cease.     All  prisoners  on  both 
sides  shall  be  set  at  liberty.     All  territory,  places,  and  possessions, 
without  exception,  taken  by  either  party  from  th   other  during  the 
war,  or  which  may  be  taken  after  the  signing  of  this  treaty,  shall 
be  restored  without  delay,  and  without  causing  any  destruction,  or 
carrying  away  any  artillery  or  other  puolic  property,  or  any  slaves 
or  other  private  property  ;  and  all  archives,  records,  deeds,  and 
papers,  either  of  a  public  nature  or  belonging  to  private  persons, 
whichi  in  the  course  of  the  war,  may  have  fallen  intct  Jie  hands  of 
the  officers  of  either  party,  shall  he  forthwith  restored  and  deliver- 
ed to  the  proper  authorities  and  persons,  to  whom  they  respective- 
ly belong. 

Article  II.  Immediately  after  the  respective  ratifications  of 
this  treaty,  orders  shall  be  sent  to  the  armies,  squadrons,  officers, 
subjects,  and  citiz*»n8  of  the  two  powers,  to  cease  from  all  hos- 
tilities. And  to  prevent  all  causes  of  complaint  which  might 
arise  on  account  of  the  prizes  which  may  be  taken  at  sea  after  the 
signing  of  this  treaty,  it  is  reciprocally  agreed  that  the  vessels  and 
effects  which  may  be  taken  in  the  Channel  and  in  the  North  Seas  af. 

ter  the  space  of from  that  of  the  signature  hereof,  shall  be 

restored  on  each  side  :  that  the  term  shall  be from  the  Chan- 

nel  and  the  North  Seas  to  the  Canary  Islands,  inclusively,  whether 

in  the  ocean  or  the  Mediterranean  :  of from  the  said  Canary 

Islands  to  the  equinoctial  line  or  equator,  and  of in  all  other 

parts  of  the  world,  without  exception. 

Article  III.  Whereas  that  portion  of  the  boundary  between  the 
dominions  of  his  Britani.ic  Majesty  in  North  America,  and  those  of 
the  United  States,  from  the  mouth  of  the  river  St.  Croix,  (as  the 
said  mouth  was  ascertained  by  the  commissioners  appointed  for 
that  purpose,)  to  the  bay  of  Fundy,  has  not  yet  been  regulated  and 
determined  ;  and,  whereas,  the  respective  rights  and  claims  of  hia 
Britannic  Majesty  and  of  the  United  States,  to  the  several  islands  in 
the  bay  of  Passamaquoddy,  and  to  the  island  of  Grand  Menan,  have 
never  been  finally  adjusted  and  determined,  the  said  islands  being 
claimed  on  the  part  of  the  United  States  as  lying  within  twenty 
leagues  of  their  shores,  and  south  of  aline  drawn  due  east  from  the 
mouth  of  the  river  St.  Croix  ;  and  on  the  part  of  his  Britandic  Ma- 
jesty,  as  having  been,  at  or  before  the  former  treaty  of  peace,  be- 
tween the  two  boundaries  within  the  limits  of  the  province  of  Nova 
Scotia :  Id  order,  therefore,  finally  to  decide  these  •everal  (jues« 


19 

tidns,  it  is  agreed  that  they  shall  be  referred  to  three  commUsionei*, 
to  be  appointed  in  the  following  manner,  viz  :  one  commissioner 
shall  be  appomted  by  his  Britannic  Majesty,  and  one  by  the  Presi- 
dent of  the  United  States,  by  and  with  the  advice  and  consent  of 
the  Senate  thereof,  and  the  said  two  commissioners,  shall  have 
power  to  choose  a  third  ;  and  if  they  cannot  agree,  they  shall  each 
propose  one  person,  and  of  fhe  two  names  so  proposed,  one  shall 
be  drawn  by  lot,  in  the  presence  of  the  two  original  commissioner*, 
and  the  three  commissioners  so  appointed,  shall  be  sworn  impar- 
tially to  examine  and  decide  the  said  questions  according  to  such 
evidence  as  shall  respectively  be  laid  before  them,  on  the  part  of 
the  British  government  and  the  United  States.     The  said  commis- 

missioners  shall  meet  at and  shall  have  power  to  adjourn  to 

such  other  place  or  places  as  they  shall  think  fit.  The  said  com- 
missioners, or  a  majority  of  them,  shall,  by  a  declaration  under 
their  hands  and  seals,  determine  the  boundary  aforesaid,  from  the 
mouih  of  the  river  St.  Croix  to  the  bay  of  Fundy  ;  and  decide  to 
which  of  the  two  contracting  parties  the  several  islands  aforesaid 
do  respectively  belong,  in  conformity  with  the  true  intent  of  the 
former  treaty  of  peace.  And  both  parties  agree  to  consider  such 
decision  as  final  and  conclusive. 

Article  iV.  Whereas^nfiither  that  point  of  the  high- lands  Ivine 
due  north  from  the  source  of  the  river  St.  Croix,  and  designated  in 
the  former  treaty  of  peace  between  the  two  powers,  as  the  north- 
west angle  of  Nova  Scotia,  nor  the  northwesternmost  head  of  Con- 
necticut river,  has  yet  been  ascertained  :  And  whereas  that  part  of 
the  boundary  line  between  the  dominions  of  the  two  powers  which 
extends  from  the  source  of  the  river  St.  Croix,  directly  north    to 
the  above  mentioned  northwest  angle  of  Nova  Scotia ;  thence,  aloDR 
the  said  high  lands,  which  divide  those  rivers,  that  empty  them- 
selves  into  the  river  St.  Lawrence,  from  those  which  fall  into  the 
Atlantic  ocean,  to  the  northwesternmost  head  of  Connecticut  river  • 
thence,  down,  along  the  middle  of  that  river,  to  the  forty-fifth  de- 
gree of  north  lattitude  ;  thence,  by  a  line  due  west,  on  said  latitude 
until  It  strikes  the  river  Iroquois,  or  Cataraguy,  has  not  yet  been 
surveyed  ;   It  is  agreed,  that,  for  these  several  purposes,  three 
eonimissioners  shall  be  appointed,  sworn,  (mutatis  mutandis^  and 
authorized  to  act  exactly  in  the  manner  directed  with  respect  to 
those  mentioned  in  the  next  preceding  article  ;   the  said  commis- 
sioners shall  meet  at ,  and  shall  have  power  to  adjourn  to 

such  other  place  or  places  as  they  shall  think  fit.  The  said  com- 
missioners,  or  a  majority  of  them,  shall  have  power  to  ascertain  and 
determine  the  points  above  mentioned,  in  conformity  with  the  provi- 
sions of  the  said  treaty  of  peace,  and  shall  cause  the  boundary  afore- 
said trom  the  source  of  the  river  St  Croix  to  the  river  Iroquois, 
or  Cataraguy,  to  he  surveyed  and  marked  according  to  the  said 
provisions.  The  said  commissioners,  or  a  majority  of  them,  shall 
make  a  map  of  the  said  boundary,  and  annex  to  it  a  declaration,  un- 
der their  hands  and  seal?,  certifying  it  to  be  the  true  map  of  th# 


ronll?  T''     of  Nova  Scot.a  ;  of  the  north  westernmost  head  of 
fhZl'T  "'"'•  ""^  '^^^"^'rther  points  of  the  said  boundary  a. 
they  may  deem  proper;  and  both  parties  ai;ree  to  consider  such 
ttwp  and  declaration  as  hnally  and  conclusively  fixing  the  said  boan- 

lion7f?hfh^'  ^''«''7'»'y  the  former  treaty  of  peace,  that  por- 
C^JILa  "V^  ^^t  *,'"'■'"''  ^-"'^^  '''■»'»  t'»«  P«i"t  where  the 
&"„  t^fr  i°[  "«'■**'  '^•''*"*^"  «'"•'««  ^h«  riler  Iroquois,  or 
Cataraguy,  to  the  lake  Superior,  was  declared  to  be  along  tht  mid. 

„♦•?■.   ;^"Yk'  '"'''  ^'^^  ^"*'"*^'  ''^'•""gh  the  middle  of  «aid  Jake. 

lake  Erie  ?h^n^p'T'""";f""°"  nf  ""T'  ''^*^««"  "'at  lake  and 
Skp  Fr  !  '  f  ^"^^' "  «"8  '«  ""'Jdle  of  said  communication,  into 
lake  Ene  ;  through  the  middle  of  said  lake  until  it  arrives  at  the 

m£.T'"Ti'T'":'  T  "'"  '"''"  ""'•«"  5  thence,  through  the 
middle  of  said  lake,  to  the  water  communication  between  that  lake 

Sdl  of  »JrT  '■  And  fereas  doubts  have  arisen  what  was  he 
middle  of  the  said  nyer,  lakes,  and  water  communications,  and  whe- 
ther  certain  islands  lying  in  the  same  were  within  the  dominions  of 
JisBntannicMajesty  or  of  the  United  States:  In  order  there  "ore 
finally  to  decide  these  questions,  they  shall  be  referred  to  three 
commissioners  to  be  appointed,  sworn,  (mutatis  mutandis)  and  au- 
thor  zed  to  act  exactly  m  the  manner  directed  with  respec  to  those 

iTZlt !°  t'  n ^'"''^'''^  ""'''''''■     T*'^  ''^^  corSmissioners! 
shall  meet,  m  the  hrst  instance,  at ,  and  shall  have  power  to 

adjourn  to  such  other  place,  or  places,  as  they  shall  think  fit  The 
said  commissioners,  or  a  majority  of  them,  shall,  by  a  declaration 
under  their  hands  and  seals,  designate  the  boundary  through  he 
said  river,  lakes,  and  w»t3r  communications,  and  decide  to  which  of 
^!}Z\T  A^  Pf  ^'^'  *^^  '^^^'•»'  '^•^"ds  lying  within  the  said 
mers,  lakes  and  water  communications,  do  respectively  belone  in 
conformity  with  the  true  intent  of  the  former  treaty  of  pefce 

dSsive  '  ^^'^^  *°  ''°°''''^''  '"'*'  ''^*''''°"  ^'  ^"^'  «°^  «oa.' 

Article  VI.  It  is  further  agreed,  that  the  said  last-mentioned 
commissioners,  after  they  shall  have  executed  the  duties  assigned 
to  them  in  the  preceding  article,  shall  be,  and  they,  or  a  major  ty  of 
them,  are  hereby,  authorized,  upon  their  oaths,^'mpartiallyo  fix 
anddetermine,  according  to  the  true  inteat  of  the  said  former  trea- 
ty  of  peace,  tha  part  of  the  boundary  betiveenthe  dominions  of  the 
two  powers  which  extends  from  the  water  communication  between 

j£e  d7>"f  Z  W^^^^rT^'i"  '^'  most  northwestern  point  of 
the  Lake  of  the  Woods  ;  to  decide  to  which  of  the  two  parties  the 

lSl\tti^l°^ V^' 'f  ^''  ""^'''^ co'nmunications.Ld risers! 
forming  Ihe  sad  boundary,  do  respectively  belong,  in  conformitv 

7ul  wtl'oTthl'"*  ?1*^'  T'  ^'^^"^^  '''^y  °f  peat ,  andTcTus J 
m^rkpT^^hl  •^'''^'""'^"''^^''^'l"'^^  ^t  to  be  surveyed  and 
marked.  .  The  said  commissioners,  or  a  majoritv  of  them  shall  hw 
^  declaraUoB,  under  their  hands  and  seals,  id^nale  th"  bo^^^^^^^^^ 


I 


21* 

aforeaaid,  state  their  daeision  on  the  aoMfJnn-  «k 
them,  and  particularize  the  latitude  and  Jo.1?  *r?  '^^''''^'^  *<* 
western  point  of  the  Lake  of  the  Wool   Sr  '''  '1'^  '"^"  "*»'"^'»- 
of  the  said  boundary  as  they  mSj  dl°™  iVo^t  ''i'L'i  tV  'T^ 
"'wr;if  VLf«  cleoision'as  anal  rnd?::;c.u.ivt'°^'  P"^'" 

th^s^:^dii':^;Si^;:  ::^;^^^ 

CaratLsanidedlntc^The  ftatemeirof  thl'''"' '''P'^''^^  ^«' 
the  journal  of  their  proceeding Th!l?h«?f-  ^''«'';  «"**""♦'•  «»«'  of 
agents  of  his  Brkanr  iS3' f„d  to  fh'i''"''  .  ^'Vl"'"  ^«  ^»»« 
States,  who  may  be  res  JSvin?^  agent,  of  the  Utiited 
ageth;  busineT.  in  S'il  of  i^ei^TelttiVT'  '"^^'"^'^  *«  -"«"• 
said  commissioners  shall  be  resoprnS^    governments.     The 

be  agreed  between  the  t^ronr't:'    Ir^^^^^^^^ 
«ettledatthetimeoflhp*.v;hl      V!?      agreement  bemg  to  be 
And  all  other  expense   atten^^^^^^^^  of  this  treaty, 

frayed,  jointly!  by  "hrtvvop ties  thr^^  commissions  shall  be  de- 
«eriLi,^edand  alloVed  b^a  mSvo?t  ^""S  previously  a«- 

the  cale  of  death.  Sness  3n!liol    ^^  commissioners.     And  ia 
place  of  every  soclt^^lIZTrTs^^^^^^^^^ 
;u  the  same  manner  as  such  commiss  ion'er  ;;i'^^,  ^  ^'olnre? 

thi  is'Lurm^InSel  l:'ZZlV'''  'T'^'^  ^''^*' '"  -«  -^  of 

been  adjudged  to  be  wifhin  tht  I   '  ^^  such  decision  or  decisions,  ^ 
such  possession  ^^"^  dominions  of  the  party  having  had  ♦ 

soutTarth'l'cJmtrrf^omTh:  '"V  ''T  '''  "-'»>  - 
the  Lake  of  the  Woo^funt  I  itThJf    f""'^  northwestern  point  of 
allel  of  north  latitude  ^nd  from  hPn'!T^  't-  ^^'^y^'^^^h  par- 
west,  along  and  -th  tre^Xara''e    «h'nl\Y"''T^:,'""'^^ 
between  his  majesty's  territories  anJfhJnP  .u  *?f  dividing  lina. 
the  westward  of  the  said  V«kp  1  ?         !u  ^*  *^^  ^"''^^  States  to 
ritories  extend  ntha  qua  ter    and  thnV.h'''  ^^/f^^P^^tive  ter- 
«tent.  form  the  southern  bou'ndatnJK'  ''•'^  ''",^  '^«"'t«  ^^at 

ries.  and  the  northern  Sou  dary'^flhe^Sr^''  V"'  ''V''" 
United  States  •  ProviJpH  fkoV      *u-      ■     .         territories  of  the 

be  ™-.„'e'riV  b'    To   E'cl'lTl"""''  "■»» 
the  territories  belongine  to  or  r  »;ml!f  k       -.u    -^"^'''ca,  or  to 


■MM 


■eia 


u 


AHTictK  IX.  The  United  Stetei  of  America  engage  to  put  nt 
end,  immediately  after  the  ratification  of  the  preient  treaty,  to 
hofiilitiea  with  all  the  tribes  or  nations  of  Indians  with  whom  they 
nay  be  at  war  at  the  time  of  soch  ratification,  and  forthwith  to 
restore  to  such  tribes  or  nations,  respectively,  all  the  possessions, 
rights,  and  privileges,  which  they  may  have  enjoyed  or  been  en- 
titled to  in  1811,  previous  to  such  hostilities.  ^ 

Pro  ^ed  always,  that  such  tribes  or  nations  shall  agree  to  de< 
list  from  all  hostilities  against  the  United  States  of  America,  their 
citixens  and  subjects,  upon  the  ratification  of  the  present  treaty 
being  notified  ta  such  tribes  or  nations,  and  shall  so  desist  accord* 

And  his  Britannic  majesty  engages  on  his  part,  to  put  an  end, 
immediately  aAer  the  ratification  of  the  present  treaty,  to  hostili- 
ties  with  all  the  tribes  or  nations  of  Indians  with  whom  he  may  be 
at  war  at  the  time  of  such  ratification,  and  forthwith  to  restore  to 
^  such  tribes,  or  nations,  respectively,  all  the  possessions,  rights,  &r<d 

privileges,  which  they  may  have  enjoyed  or  been  entiUed  to  in 
J81],  previous  to  such  hostilities. 

Provided  always,  that  such  tribes  or  nations  shall  agree  to  desist 
from  all  hostilities  against  his  Britannic  majesty  and  his  subjects, 
upon  the  ratification  of  the  present  treaty  being  notified  to  such 
tribes  or  nations,  and  shall  so  desist  accordingly. 

Article  X.  Ilia  Britannic  majesty  and  the  United  States  shall, 
by  all  the  means  in  their  power,  restram  the  Indians  living  within 
their  respective  dominions  from  committing  hostilities  against  the 
territory,  citizens,  or  subjects,  of  the  other  party  :  and  both  powers 
also  agree  and  mutually  pledge  themselves,  if  at  any  time  war 
should  unhappily  break  out  between  them,  not  to  employ  any  In- 
dians, nor  to  admit  of  their  aid  and  co-operation  in  the  prosecU' 
tion  of  the  war  against  the  other  party. 

Article  XI.  Each  party  shali  effectually  exclude  from  its  naval 
and  commercial  service  all  eeamen    seafaring,  or  other  persons, 
*    subjects  or  citizens  of  the  other  party,  not  naturalized  by  ihe  re- 
spective governments  of  the  two  parties,  before  the day  of 

;  seamen  or  other  persons,  subjects  of  either  party,  who 

shall  desert  from  public  or  private  ships  or  vessels,  shall,  when 
found  within  the  jurisdiction  of  the  other  party,  be  surrendered, 

provided  they  be  demanded  within from  the  time  of  their 

desertion. 

No  person  whatever  shall,  upon  the  high  seas,  and  vrithout  thr 
jurisdiction  of  either  party,  be  demanded  or  taken  out  of  ar  ' ' 
or  vessel,  belonging  to  subjects  or  citizens  of  any  of  the  parties, 
by  the  public  or  private  armed  ships  or  vessels  belonging  to,  or  in 
the  service  of,  the  other,  unless  such  person  be,  at  the  time,  in 
the  actual  employment  of  an  enemy  of  such  other  party.     This 

article  shall  continue  in  force  for  the  term  of years.    Nothing 

in  this  article  contained  shall  be  construed  thereafter  to  affect  or 
impair  the  r';^'A^'  *ii  either  party. 


23 

AuTicLt  XII.  ffeith«roftheeoirtnK!tiiigp*rtia.ihan  hereafter  b« 
engaged  in  war  aj^ainit  a?  '  third  power,  to  whi-h  *„^  .1..  „.k_^  ./. 
(he  parties  shall  remain  neutral,  it  m  agreed  that  erer^  veiil  of  the 
neutral  party,  tailing  for  a  port  or  place  belonging  to  the  e,  emv 
of  the  belligerent,  without  knowing  that  the  same   is  bosieMd 
bockaded,  or  invested,  may  be  turned  away  frvm  «uch  porter 
place,  but  shall  not  be  detained,  nor  her  cargo,  if  not  contraband 
be  confiscated,  unless,  after  such  notice,  she  shall  again  attemot  U 
enter  •  but  she    hall  be  permitted  to  go  to  any  other  port  or  place 
ihe  may  think         per  ;  nor  shall  any  vessel  or  goods  of  either 
party,  that  may  have  entered  into  such  port  or  place  before  the 
same  was  bes'eged,  blockaded,  or  invested  by  the  other,  and  be 
found  therein  alter  the  reduction  or  surrender  of  such  piece  be 
liable  tj  conhscation,  but  shall  be  returned  to  the  proprietors 
thereof:  «.  d,  m  order  t-^  determine  what  characterizes  n  blockaded 
port,  that  denomination  is  given  only  to  a  port  where  there  is.  bv 
ae  disposition  of  the  power  which  attacks  it  with  ships,  atationirv 
or  sufflciently  near,  en  evident  danger  in  entering.  ^* 

Article  Xlli.  It  is  agreed  that  indemnity  shall  be  made  bv  hit 
Bntannic  majesty  to  the  citizens  of  the  United  States,  for  all  iJsses 
•nd  damages  sustained  by  then  during  the  late  war  between  Great 
Britain  and  F  lance,  and  prior  to  the  commencement  of  the  present 
war  by  reason  of  irregular  or  illegal  captures,  seizures,  or  con- 
deranatiomi  of  vessels  and  other  property,  under  colour  of  autho- 
rity, contrary  to  the  known  and  established  rules  of  the  Jaw  of 

"  Tf  *!.  '!  "."''**  *«'*?**''  *'•'»*  indemnity  shall.be  made  by 
Jht  i*  J^^^if/'^S  parties,  to  the  subjects  or  citizens  of  thj 
other  party,  for  all  losses  and  damages  sustained  subsequent  to  the 
commencement  of  the  present  ivar.  by  reason  of  th2  seizure  or 
condemnation  of  the  vessels  or  cargoes,  belonging  to  the  subjecta 
or  cit^ens  of  the  one  party,  which,  in  the  ordinary  course  of  S 
merce,  happened  at  the  commencement  of  hostilities  to  be  in  the 
ports  of  the  other  party  ;  and  by  reason  of  the  destrucUon  of  un^ 
fortified  towns,  and  the  pillage  or  destruction  of  private  proper"? 
and  the  enticement  and  carrymg  away  of  negroes,  contrary  to  the 
nS        *'**'''"***^  '■"'®"  *'»*^  ««««««  of  '^w  between  civilized 

it  is  agreed,  that,  for  the  purpose  of  determining  the  indemnities 
due  by  each  contracting  party,  in  conformity  with  the  provisions 
of  this  article,  commissioners  shall  be  appointed  in  the  following 
r  \uaner,  viz  :  one  commissioner  shall  be  named  by  his  Britanni? 
majesty,  and  one  by  the  President  of  the  United  States,  by  and 
with  the  advice  and  consent  of  the  Senate  thereof;  and  th/ said 
two  commissioners  shall  agree  in  the  choice  of  a  third  •  or  if  thev 
cannot  agree,  they  shall  each  propose  one  person,  and  of  th»  two 
names  so  propos  d.  one  sha!!  be  taken  by  lot.  in  the  presence  of 
the  two  ongina   commissioners,  and  the  three  commissioners  thus 
appointed   shall  be  sworn,  and  authorized  and  empowered  im- 
partially,  to  examine  into  all  such  claims  and  complaints  4in  I  to 
determine  the  indemnities  which  may  be  justly  due  for  the' same 


■(»' 


24 

The  taid  commiuionsrs  shall  meet  at 


and  shall  have 


power  to  adjourn  to  such  other  plade,  or  pbces,  as  they  shall 
tbink  fit ;  they  shall  also  have  power  to  appoint  a  secretary,  swear 
and  examine  witneases,  and  have  all  asgistance  and  lac'MUes  neces- 
sary to  effect  the  object  of  their  appointment. 

The  award  of  the  said  commissioners,  or  a  majority  of  them, 
shall  m  all  ca^es  he  final  and  conclusive,  both  as  to  the  justice  of 
the  claim,  and  as  to  the  amount  of  the  sum  to  be  paid  to  the  claim- 
ant and  claimants.  And  his  Britannic  majesty  and  the  United  States 
agree  and  undertake  to  cause  the  sums  50  awarded  to  be  due  hr 
them,  respectively,  to  be  paid  in  specie,  to  such  claimant  and 
claimants  without  deduction,  and  at  such  place  or  places,  time  or 
times,  as  shall  be  awarded  by  the  commissioners. 

Article  XIV.  It  is  also  agreed,  that  no  person  or  persons,  re- 
siding withm  the  dominions  of  one  of  the  parties,  who  may  have 
taken  part  with  the  other  party,  in  the  war  between  Great  Britain 
ana  the  United  States,  shall,  on  that  account,  be  prosecuted,  mo- 
lested, or  annoyed,  either  in  his  person  or  property  ;  and  that  all 
8uch  persons  disposed  to  remove  into  the  dominions  of  the  other 

party,  shall  be  allowed  the  term  of months,  freely  to  sell 

their  property,  of  every  nature  and  description  whatsoever,  and 
to  remove  acr    -dingly. 

Article  .  This  treaty,  when  the  same  shall  have  been  rati- 
fied on  both  sides,  and  the  respective  ratifications  mutually  ex- 
changed,  shall  be  binding  on  both  parties,  and  the  ratification  shall 

be  exchaiiged  a^ in  the  space  of mouths  from  this  day, 

or  sooner,  if  possible. 
In  faith  whereof,  we,  the  re  pective  plenipotentia.  ies,  have 

signed  tins  treaty,  and  have  thereunto  affixed  our  seals, 
t^one  at  Ghent,  the day  of -^ one  thousand  eight  hun- 
dred and  fourteen. 


British  Note,  No.  7. 

The  undersigned  have  had  the  honour  to  receive  the  note  and 
project  of  a  treaty  of  peace  presented  by  the  American  plenipo- 
tentiaries  on  the  lO^h  instant. 

The  undersigned  are  of  opinion  that  the  most  convenient  course 
for  them  to  adopt  will  be  to  return  this  project  with  their  marginal 
alterations  and  suggestions  on  the  several  articles  of  which  it  is 
composed.  The  existing  difl'erences  between  the  two  governments 
will  thus  be  brought  more  immediately  in  view,  and  it  is  hoped 
that,  by  confining  the  discussions  to  one  project,  the  negotiations 
may  sooner  be  brought  to  a  favourable  conclusion.  The  first  part 
of  the  10th  article  appears  to  be  unnecessary,  and  the  stipulation 
contained  in  the  whole  of  it  altogether  inadmissible.  Though  his 
majesty's  government  sincerely  hopes  thai  a  renewal  of  the  war 
between  his  majesty  and  the  United  States  may  be  far  distant,  yet 
the  undersigned  cannot  consent  to  enter  into  any  engagement  as  to 
what  shall  be  the  conduct  of  their  government,  if  such  a  war  should 
unfortunatelv  nrcur^ 


25 

With  respect  to  the  Htb  and  12th  articles,  his  maiesty's^oyei-ii. 
me.,t  has  strongly  manifested  it*,  sincere  disposiUoMo  the  8i>e*^^^^ 
restoration  of  peace,  by  agreeing,  under  all  the  preLnt  c  Lum 

t.)  which  these  alleles  relate.  No  advantage  can  arise  from  en- 
te.ing  into  discussions,  upon  a  successful  result  of  which  the  Ame- 
rican plenipotentiaries  have  stated,  more  than  once,  that  they  wUl 
not  make  the  conclusion  of  the  peace  at  all  to  depend         ^ 

With  respect  to  the  13th  arUcle,  the  indemni6cations  prooosed 
by  It,  as  applied  to  the  actual  circumstances  of  the  wa?  aETSo 
unprecedented  and  objectionable,  that  any  further  perseve'rance  of 
the  American  plenipotentiaries  in  requiring  them.  is^n^SSed 
by  the  undersigned  :  if,  however,  contrary  to  expectation  3.^ 
mfications  of  this  kind  should  be  ;equired,^all  hop^e  of  brL  ng  tJ^ 
Bogotiationstoa  favourable  issue  must  prove  abortive:    The  un 
dersigned  are  instructed  explicitly  to  declare,  that  as  their  Z 
vernment  makes  no  claim  on  account  of  losses  ;ustained  by  Britfsh 
subjects  arising  out  of  a  war  declared  by  the  UniJed  iaiTt 
neither  can  their  government  agree  to  make  compensaUon  forlolles 
.ustained  in  such  a  war  by  the  American  people.    '*"°° '^"^ '**""' 
i  he  undersigned  are,  however,  willing  to  agree  to  a  stimilaHn*. 
by  which  It  shall  be  provided,  that  the  courtfof  jS^tlcefn  S 
country  shall  be  open  to  the  just  demands  of  the  respective  peo 
pie,  and  that  no  obstructioft  be  thrown  in  the  way  of  their  re7o?er; 

CVI^'tmr"^'  °r'^'^^'  °''^"^^'°'^  -J'-^-^y  ^-  orX^ 
With  respect  to  the  lith  article,  the  undersigned  do  not  concur 

tLZT^  ^Z  'tU  r'^  «*'P"'«"o"  «« i«  there  proposed 
tiZj  ""*^^7g"«d  think  proper  to  add.  that,  with  respect  o  par- 
ticular  alterations  suggested  by  them  in  various  articles  of  th  J 
project,  they  are  ready  to  enter  into  such  explanations  as  mavb! 
reouired  of  them,  with  the  sincere  desire  of  endeavouring  to  re 
concilethe  pretensions  brought  forward  on  the  part  of  the  r  re- 
fpective  governments.  ^  ^'^ '® 

The  undersigned  have  forborne  to  fnsist  upon  the  basis  nf  ^.r 
jom,?ert,,  to  the  advantage  of  which  thev  cons'Se  thefr  countr^ 
fuily  entuled.  But  should  this  negotiation  terminals  in  ^ 
contrary  to  their  hopes  a.d  just  expecJ  tls^Sri  ?  p  J^^^ 
against  any  claim  or  demand  beine-  ur^eH  h«  tuL  a  ^  •  P^^^^est 
ment  in  /ny  future  negJu^r^n  ^ote^ete^^^rt'h^^fS 
which  his  majesty's  government  have  now%hown  ?hemse Ive  w.I 
hng  to  afford  to  the  speedy  restoratior.  of  peace  '''^"'^'^"^  ""'' 
1  lie  undersigned  avail  themselves  of  the  present  nnn«r*„„w    * 

GAMBIER, 

HENRY  GOULDBURN 
Ghent,  November  26th,  18,4.  ^^I^LIAM  ADAMS.         ' 


Project  tfa  Treaty,  as  returned  bv  thf  British  to  the  American  Pleni- 
potentiarieSf  26{A  JSfoiveifber,  1814. 

,  Trtatj  of  Peace  and  Amity,  between  his  Britannic  Majesty,  and 
the  United  States  of  America. 


The  fullowing  marginal  remarks 
and  alterations  were  made  and 
proposed  by  the  British  pleni- 
potentiaries.. 
Note.    It  is  proposed  to  omit 

altogether  the  words  that  are 

noderlined. 


i  \ 


AntlCLE  L 


(1)  places  or 

(2)  after  the  exchange  of  the  ra- 
tifications as  herein  after  men- 
tioned. 
*  It  is  thought  more  advisable 


His  Britannic  majesty  and  the 
United  States  of  America,  desi- , 
reus  of  terminating  the  war  which 
has  unhappily  sul^isted  between 
the  two  countries,  and  of  restor- 
ing, upon  principles  of  perfect  re- 
ciprocity, peace,  friendship,  and 
good    understanding,    between 
them,  have,  for  that  purpose,  ap- 
pointed their  respective  plenipo- 
tentiaries, that  is  to  say,  his  Bri- 
tannic majesty  on  his  part  has 
appointed  the  right  honourable 
James  lord  Gambier,    admiral 
of  the  White  Squadron,  of  his 
majesty's  fleet,  Henry  Goulburn, 
esq.  a  member  of  the  Imperial 
Parliament,  and  under  Secretary 
of  State,  and  William  Adams, 
esq.  Doctor  of  Civil  Laws  ;  and 
the  President  of  the  United  States, 
by  and%ith  advice  and  consent  of 
the  Senate  thereof,  has  appomted 
John  Qjuincy  Adams,  James  A. 
Bayard,  Henry  Clay,  Jonathan 
Uu8sell,and  Albert  Gallatin,  citi- 
zens of  the  United  States,  who, 
after  a  reciprocal  communication 
of  their  respective  full  powers, 
have  agreed  upon  the  following 
articles. ' 

Article  I.  There  shall  be  a 
firm  and  universal  peace  between 
his  Britannic  majesty  and  the 
United  States  and  between  their 
respective  countries,  territories, 
cities,  towns,  and  people,  of  eve- 
ry degree,  without  exception  of 
(l)  ^Tsons  or  places.  All  hos- 
tilities, both  by  sea  and  land, 
shall  immediately  cease.  (2)  Ml 
prisoners  on  both  sides  shall  be  set 
at  liberty.*  All  territory,  pLicee, 
and  possessions,  without  excpp- 


''».^rt-'-«l* 


&7 


lertcan  Pleni' 


that  the  prorision  respecting  pri- 
80Der«  of  war,  should  be  the  sub- 
ject of  a  separate  article  ;  the 
draft  of  an  article  od  this  f  abject 
is  subjoined. 

(1)  belonging  to 

(2)  and  taken  by 
f3)  of  the 

f  4)  originaHy  captured  in  the  said 
forts  or  places,  and  which  shall 
remain  therein  upon  the  ex- 
change of  the  ratifications  of  this 
treaty.  ' 


(9)  as  far  as  may  be  practicable. 

Article  II. 
(6)  shall  have  been  exchanged, 


(7)  exchange  of  the  ratifications 


(8)  the  period  of  the  exchange 
of  the  ratifications, 


(f>)  the  same  term  of- for 

all  parts  of  the  Mediterranean. 


Jon,  taken  ^  (1)  either  ptrty 
from  (1)  the  other  during  tli« 
'wr,  or  which  may  be  taken 
•fterthe  signiug  of  this  treaty, 
shall  be  restored  without  delay 
and  without  causing  any  destrac- 
tion,  or  carrying  away  any'  (3) 
artillery  or  other  public  proper- 
ty.  Or  any  slaves  or  other  pri- 
vate property,  (4)  and  «||  ar- 
chives, records,  deeds,  and  pa- 
pers,  either  of  a  public  nature 
or  belonging  to  private  persooc 
which,  in  the  course  of  the  war* 
may  have  fallen  into  the  hands  of 
the  officers  of  either  party,  shall 
be  (6)  forthwith  restored,  and  de- 
hvsred  to  the  proper  authoritiee 
and  persons  to  whom  they  re- 
spectively belong. 

Article  II.  Immediately  af- 
ter the  respective  ratiCcations  of 
this  treaty,  (6)  orders  shall  be 
sent  to  the  armies,  squadrons, 
officers,  subjects,  and  citizens, 
ol  the  two  powers,   to  cease 
trom  all  hostilities :  and  to  pre- 
''*'!*«"  causes  of  complaint. 
Which  might  arise  on  account  of 
the  pnzes  which  may  be  taken 
at  sea,  after  the  (7)  signing  of 
this    treaty,  it  is   reciproSuir 
agreed,  that  the  vessels  and  J- 
Jects  which  may  be  taken  in  the 
Uiannel,  and  in  the  North  Seas. 

after  the  space  of fron 

Wthat  of  the  Signature  hereof, 
shall  be  restored  on  each  side ; 
that  the  term  shall  be  * 

from  the  Channel  and  the  North 
Seas  to  the  Canary  islands  inclu- 
«'^;'y' (9)  whether  in  the  ocean 

or  .he  Mediterranean :  of — 

from  th^  said  Canary  Islands  to 
the  eqnu  )ctial  line  or  equator. 

^"V^.    inallothe; 

parts  of  ne  world  without  ex- 

ception. 


•■pum 


I 


2t 


Article  III.  JThereas  it  was 
stipulated  by  the  second  article 
in  the  treaty  of  peace  of  1 783, 
between   big   Britannic  majesty 
and  the  United  States  of  Ameri- 
ca, that  the   boundary   of   the 
Unitj^d  States    should    compre- 
hend  "all  islands  <yithin  twenty 
leagues  of  any  part  of  the  shores 
of  th^   United  States,  and  lying 
between  lines  to  be  drawn  due 
east  from  the  points  where  the 
aforesaid    boundaries    between 
No?a  Scotia  on  the  one  part,  and 
East  Florida  on  the  other,  shall, 
respectively,  touch  the   Bay  of 
Fandy,  and  the  Atlantic  ocean, 
excepting  auch  islands  ae  now 
are,  or  heretofore  have  been, 
withia  the   limits  of  Nova  Sco- 
tia :"  And  whereas  claims  have 
been  made   by  the  government 
of  the  United  States  totcertain 
islands  in  the   Bay   of  Fundy, 
which  said  islands  are   claimed 
as  belonging,  to    his    Britannic 
niajesty,  as  having  been  at  the 
time  of,  and  previous   to,   the 
aforesaid  treaty  of  1783,  within 
the  limits  of  the  province  of  No- 
va Scotia  :  in  order,  therefore, 
finally    to    decide    upon  these 
claims,   it  is  agreed  that    they 
shall  be  referred  to  two  com- 
missioners, to  be  appointed  in 
the  following  manner,  viz.  one 
commissioner  shall  be  appointed 
by  his   Britannic   majesty,   and 
one  by   the    President  of  the 
United  States,  by  and  with  the 
advice  and  consent  of  the  Senate 
thereof,  and  the  said  two  com- 
missioners, so  appointed,  shall 
be  sworn  impartially  to  examine 
and  decide  upon  the  said  claims, 
according  to  such  evidence  as 
shall  be  laid  before  them  on  the 
part  of  his  Britannic  majesty  and 
of  the  United  States  respective- 


Article  hi.    Whereas,  that 
portion  of  the  boundary  between, 
the  dommions   of  his  Britannic 
inajesty  in  Aorth  Jmerita,  and 
those  of  the  United  States,  from 
the  mouth  of  the  river  St.  Croix 
{as  the  said  mouth  was  ascertain- 
ed by  the  coinmissioners  appoint-  "" 
«dfor  that  purpose)  to  the  Bay  of 
Fundy,  has  not  yet  been  regulated 
and  determiued  :    And  whereas, 
the  resper/Ave  rights  and  claims 
of  his  Britannic  Majesty  and  of 
the  United  States,  to  the  several 
^islands  in  the  Bay   of  Passama- 
quoddy,  and    to    the    island    of 
Grand  Menan,  have  never  been 
finally  adjusted  and  determined, 
the  said  islands  being  claimf.d  o» 
the  part  of  the  United  States  as 
lying  within   twenty  leagues  of 
their  shores,  and  south  of  a  line 
drawn  due  east  from  the  mouth  of 
the  river  St.  Croix,  and  on  the 
part  of  his  Britannic  majesty,  as 
having  been,  at  or  before  the  for- 
mer treaty  of  peace,  between  the 
two  countries,  within  the   limits 
of  the  province  of  JVbate  Scotia  : 
hi  order,  therefore,  finally  to  de- 
cide these  several  questions,  it  is 
agreed  that  they  shall  be  referred 
to  three  commissioners,  to  be  ap- 
pointed in  the  following  manner, 
viz.  one  commissioner  shall  be  ap- 
pointed by  his  Britannic  majesty, 
and  one  by  the  President  of  the 
United  States,  by  and  with  the  ad- 
vice  and  consent  of  the   Senate 
thereof,  and  the  said  two  commis- 
sioners shall  have  power  to  choqse 
a  third,  and  if  they  cannot  agree 
they  shall  each  propose  one  person, 
and  of  the  two  names,  so  proposed, 
one  shall  be  drawn  by  lot,  in  the 
presence  of  the  two  original  com- 
missioners, and  the  three  commis- 
sioners,   So  appointed,    shall    be 
sworn  in^artially  to  examine  and 


ly.     The   said    commissioners 
shall    meet  at    • a^j 


—       "   '      —      3nfl 

shall  have  power  to  adjou'rn  to 

fh      °?n''  F'^'^*'  ^'^  place's,  as 
they  shall  think  fit.     The  said 

commissioners  shall,  by  a  decla- 

ration  or    report,   under  their 

Hands  and  seals,  decide  to  which 

ot  the  two  contracting  parties 

the  sereral  islands  aforesaid  do 

ly^Tl^y^^^'^'^S^m  conform. 
ity  with  the  true  intent  of  the 
said  treaty  of  peace  of  1783: 
and  ,f  the   said  commissioners 

Joth  parties  shall  consider  such 
decision  as  final  and  conclusive. 
It  IS  further  agreed,  that,  in 
the  event  of  the  two  commis- 
sioners differing  upon  all,  or  any, 
ot    the  matters  so   referred  to 

l^fl!°'**rlu*''®^^^"*o^botb,or 
either  of  the  said  commissioners 

iy  omitting,   o  act  as  such,  they 
shall  make  jointly  or  sepirate^ 

to  the  government  of  his  Britan- 
mc  majesty   as  to  that  of  the 
United  States,  stating.  i„  detau! 
the  points  on  which  they  differ 
and    the  grounds  upon    which 
their  respective  opinions  have 
been  formed  ;  or  the   grounds 
upon  which  they,  or  eK  of 
them,  have  so  refused,  declined 
^r  omitted  to  act.     And  his  Bri- 
tannic majesty,  and  the  eovern- 

mentofthe  United  States*  he^e. 
by  agree  to  refer  the  report,  or 
reports  of  the  said  commissi^n!^ 
ers,  to  some  friendly  sovereiirD 

or  state,  to  be  then  DameS  f?r 
that  purpose,  and  who  shall  be 
requested  to  decide  on  the  dif- 
ferences which  may  be  stated  m 
the  said  report,  or  reports,  or 
upon  the  report  of  one  coZ 
nussioner,   together  with    th« 


2» 

decide  thisaid  qu^tt-ons,  accord. 
ZVr  7^\^«'''«»e*  as  'shall  re, 
'pectively  be  laid  before  them  on 
^*  part  of  the  British  goverZ 
ment,  and  of  the  Unite  f  States, 
Jhesatdcom.mssioners  ,hall  me^ 
~  7  ■'  *""'  shall  have  potb^ 
er  to  adjourn  to  such  other  pHaZ, 

Z^placej,  as  they  shall  thUjit* 
I  fie  said  commisaioners,  or  a  *««. 
jortty  of  them,  shall,  by  a  declt 
ratton  under  their  hands  and 
seats,  determine  the  boundary 
aforesaid  from  the  mouth  of  tkt 

^J^^rStCroixtotheBayo/pZ 
dy,  and  decide  to  which  of  th* 
two  contracting  parties  the  seierZ 
islands  aforesaid  do  respective^ 
belong  in  conformity  with  t& 
true  tntentofthe  foLer  trel 
of  peace     ^nd  both  parties  agri^     ' 


30 


girouD<)9  upon  which  the  oth«r 
commissioner  ihnll  have  no  re- 
fused, declined,  or  omitted  to 
act,  as  the  case  may  be-  And  if 
the  commissioner  "o  refusing^ 
declining,  or  omitting  to  act, 
•hall  also  wilfully  omit  to  sttite 
the  grounds  upon  which  he  has 
•o  done  in  soch  manner  that  the 
•■id  statement  may  be  referred 
to  such  friendly  sovereign  or 
itnte,  together  with  the  report 
of  such  other  commissioner, 
tl.fn  such  sovereign,  or  state, 
•hall  decide,  ex  parte,  upon  the 
•aid  report  alone.  And  his  Bri- 
tannic majesty,  and  the  govern- 
ment of  the  United  States,  en- 
gage  lO  consider  the  decision  oi 
,  auch  friendly  sovereign  or  state, 
to  be  final  and  conclusive  on  all 
the  matters  so  referred. 
Article  IV. 


Articlk  IV.  Whereas,  nei- 
ther that  pointof  the  Highlands 
lying  due  north  from  the  source 
of  the  river  St.  Croix,  and  de- 
signated in  the  former  treaty  of 
peace  between  the  two  powers 
as  the  northwest  angle  of  Novar 
Scotia,  nor  the  northwestern- 
most  head  of  Connecticut  river, 
has  yet  been  ascertained  ;  and 
whereas  that  part  of  the  bound- 
ary line  between  the  dominions 
of  the  two  powers,  which  ex- 
tendi) from  the  source  of  the  ri- 
ver St.  Croix  directly  north  to 
the  above  mentioned  northwest 
angle  of  Nova  Scotia ;  thence, 
along  the  said  Highlands,  which 
divide  those  rivers  that  empty 
themselves  into  the  river  St. 
Lawrence,  from  those  which 
fall  into  the  Atlantic  ocean,  to 
the  nortbwestemmoat  head  of 
Connecticut  river ;  thence,  down 
along  the  middle  of  that  river  to> 
the  forty -fifth  degree  of  north 
Vititude  ^  thence,  by  a  line  due 


''•':?!tfP!T-i 


i\)  two. 


(2)  unless  otherwise  specified 
m  the  present  article. 


P)  of  178a 


(4)  And,  in  the  evient  of  the 
said  two  commissioners  differing 
or  both  or  either  of  them  refus-' 
ing,  declining,  or  wilfully  omit- 
ting to  act,  such  reports,  decla- 
rations, or  statements,  shall  be 
made  by  them,  or  either  of  them: 
and  such  reference  to  a  friendly 
sovereign  or  state  shall  be  made, 
in  all  -espects.  as  in  the  latter 
part  of  the  third  article  is  con- 
tamed,  and  in  as  full  a  manner  as 
M  the  same  was  herein  repeated. 
Article  V. 


31 

'^est,  on  said  latitade,  ontil  it 
•trikes  the    river  IroqaoiM.  or 
Lataraguy,  has  not  yet  been  sur- 
veyed.    It  is  agreed  that,  for 
these  several  purposes  three  (I) 
commissioners  shall  be  appoint- 
ed, sworn,  (mutatis    .rmtandit) 
and  authorized  to  act  exactly  in 
thr    manner  directed  with   re- 
spect to  those  mentioned  in  the 
next  preceding  article.(2)    Th« 
said  commissioners   shall  meet 
** »  and  shall  have  pow- 
er to  adjourn  to  such  other  place 
or  places  as  they  shall  think  fit. 
The  said   commissioners,  or  a 
majority    of  them,    shall    have 
power  to  asceftain  and   deter- 
nMue  the  points  abovementioned, 
«n  conformity    with    the  provi- 
sions of  the  said  treaty  of  peace, 
(3)  and  shall  cause  the  boundary 
aforesaid,  from  the  source  of  the 
river  St.  Croix  to  the  river  Iro* 
quois,  or  Cataraguy,  to  be  sur- 
veyed and  marked  according  to 
the  said  provisions. 

The  said  commissioners,  or  a 
majority  of  them,  shall  make  a 
map  of  the  said  boundary,  and 
annex  to  it  a  declaration,  under 
their  hands  and  seals,  certifying 
It  to  be  the  true  map  of  the  said 
boundary,    and    particularizing 
the  latitude  and  longitude  of  the 
northwest  angle  of  Nova  Scotia, 
oj.  th«   northwesternmost  head 
of  Connecticut  river,  and  of  such 
other  points  of  the  said  boundary 
as  they  may  deem  proper  ;  and 
both  parties  agree   to  consider 
such   map   and   declarati'  n    ai 
finally  and  conclusively    fixing 
the  said  boundary.(4) 

Article  V.  Whereas,  by  the 
former  treaty  of  peace,  that  por- 
tion of  the  boundary  of  the 
United  States,  from  the  point 
where  the  forty-fifth  degree  of 


32 

north  latitude  strikes  the  river 
Irbquoiii,  or  CBtaragiiy,  to  the 
Lake  Superior,  was  declared  tu 
be  along  the  middle  of  said  river 
into  Luke  Ontario,  through  the 
middle  ot'suid  lake  until  it  strikes 
the  communicatioii  by  water  be- . 
tween  that  lake  and  Lake  Erie  ; 
thence,  along  the  middle  of  said 
communication,  into  Lake  Kric, 
through  the  middle  of  said  lake 
until  it  arrives  at  the  Hater  com> 
munication  into  the  Lake  Huron; 
thence,  through    the  middle  of 
said  lake,  to  the  water  communi' 
cation    between  that   lake   and 
lake  Superior :     And    whereas 
doubts  have  arisen  what  was  the 
middle  of  the  said  river,  lakes, 
and  water  communications,  and 
whether   certain   islands,   lying 
in  the  same,  were  within  the  do- 
minions of  his  Britannic  majes- 
ty, or  of  the  United  States :  In 
order,  therefore,  finally  to  de- 
cide these  questions,{  1 )  they  shall 
he  referred  to  (2)  three  commis- 
sioners, to  be  appointed,  sworn, 
(mutatis  mutandis)  and  authoriz- 
ed to  act  exactly  in  the  manner 
directed  with  respect  to  those 
mentioned  in  the  next  preceding 
(3)  unless  otherwise  specified    article.(3)     The    said  commis- 


(2) 


doubts, 
two. 


ID  this  present  article. 


sioners  shall 
instance,  at  • 


meet, 


in  the  first 
and   shall 


(4)  report  or 


have  power  to  adjourn  to  such 
other  place  or  places  as  they 
shall  think  fit.  The  said  com- 
missioners, or  a  majority  oftiiem, 
shall,  by  «  (4)  declaration,  under 
their  handj  and  seals,  designate 
the  boundary  through  the  said 
river,  lakes,  and  water  commu- 
nications, and  decide  to  which  of 
the  two  contracting  parties  the 
several  islands  lying  within  the 
said  rivers,  lakes,  and  water 
communications,  do  respectively 
belong,  in  conformity  with  the 


(J)  *aid  treaty  of  nsd. 
(i')  designation  and 

(3)  And  in  the  event  of  the 
SHiiUwo  coinniiwJoners  diflerinjr 

«r  both  or  either  of  them  refu!: 
ing.  ticchmng,  or  wilfully  omit- 
!!'«  *"  «<^t.  "»ch  reports,  declara- 
JJons,  or  statements,  shall  be 
;n»de  by  them,  or' either  of 
»iem  ;  and  such  reference  to  a 
Jnendly  sovereign  or  state  shall 

be.na.le.  .nail  respects,  as  in 
the  latter  part  of  the  third  arti. 
cle  IS  contained,  and  in  as  f»||  a 

"eieS''''^^-"^'^--^-- 
Article  VI, 
(4)  two. 


M 


true  intent    of  tht,   fi\  r 

i-^y'/.^«l.tdi'i.if^;rr: 

t  e«.  agree  to  consider  such  7«i 
deasion   «.    ,,«,   ^,   ^  M«) 


(6)  of  na^s. 


(6)  of  i78S. 


{^)  report  or. 


Article   VI.     I#   j.    r    . 

««reed.  that  the   sJVlrS 
;nent.oned  commissio^^^/"'* 

they  shall  haveexecuted, bed- 
fe«ass,gned  to  them  in  the  or-' 

<»ed.ngartlcle,  shall  be,  and  tbeT 
l*-^  "majority  of  them,  aVeheS 
authorized,   linon    *k1;Z        .  ^ 

ine  said  >rmcr  treaty  of  peace 

r>)  that  part  of  the  boundart  k^ 

^^veen  the  dominions  of  thTit; 

powers  which  extends  frJm  tZ 

water   communication    beLen 

and    rivers     A.     '""'""'<=«"«"». 
boundarv    do   """"^  ^^^    ««•<» 

loog!t?onfi  mi^P^tr^^^^ 

parorthiixi:^^^^^^^^^ 

quireu.tobesurveyed;/dmar. 
eu.     The   said   commissioners 
^ramajcnty  of  them,  shall,  by  I' 


I 


94 


(I)  potnti. 


{%)  parU  of. 


(3)  (lotignntion  nnd. 

(4)  Aiul  in  the  cvont  of  the 
•aid  >wo  cummi»iiiun«r«  difl'cring, 
or  both  or  either  of  them  refui* 
ing,  ileclir  iiig,  or  wilfully  omit- 
ting to  not,  mirh,  rp.pnrti,  doclu- 
rations,  or  atutemcntt ,  nhidl  be 
mitde  by  them,  or  t>it!>er  of 
them  ;  and  «<\ch  rcfercince  to  it 
fi>iendlv  novoreign  or  ttute  shall 
be  made  in  nil  respects  as  in  the 
litter  part  of  the  third  article  is 
contained,  and  in  as  full  a  man- 
ner as  if  the  same  wa«  herein 
repeated. 

ARTKiLK  VII. 

(5)  two. 


(6)  all.        (7)  reports. 
h)  statemsnw. 
(9)  and. 


and  lealst  deiignate  the  bound< 
•ry  aforetaid^  state  their  decU 
ainn  on  the  (i)  ffutid'oni  thus  re* 
furred  to  them,  and  pMrliculnvixe 
the  latitude  and  longitude  of  the 
must  northwestern  point  of  the 
Luke  of  the  Woods,  and  of  such 
other  (2)  pninin  on  the  said 
boundary,  as  thny  may  deem 
proper  ;  and  both  parlies  agree 
tn  consider  such  (H)  decision  m 
iinul  and  conclu«ive.(4) 


(10)  cdnU«»cliu'$. 


Artici.k  Vtl.  The  several 
boards  uff5)commiHt4ioners  men- 
tioned  in  the  four  preceding  ar- 
ticles, shall  ruspectively  havo 
power  to  appoint  n  secretary, 
and  to  employ  such  tiurvcyors, 
or  other  persons,  as  they  shall 
judge  necessary.  Duplicates  of 
(6)  their  respective  (7)  declara- 
tions (8)  and  decisions  of  the 
statemmt  (9)  of  their  accounts, 
and  of  the  Journal  of  their  pro- 
ceedings, shall  be  delivered  by 
them  to  the  agents  of  his  Britan- 
nic mnjestv,  and  to  the  agents  of 
the  United  States,  who  may  be 
respectively  appointed  and  au- 
thorized to  manage  the  business 
in  behalf  of  their  respective  go- 
Ternments.  The  said  commis- 
sioners shall  be  respectively 
paid  in  such  manner  as  shall  be 
agreed  between  the  two  (10)  par* 
ties,  such  agreement  being  to  be 


'»■ 


(I)  oqiiKlly. 


(a)  contTBCtinij. 


(3)  orof  4hQ  lovoreign  or  iMr. 
•0  referred  to,  un  in  many  ol'iho 
preceding  articles  contained. 


Articir  VIII,  It  is  agreed 
that  a  linj,  drawn  due  west,  from 
the  Lake  of  the  Woods,  along 
the  49th  jarallel  of  north  lati- 
tude, Bhal,  be  the  line  of  demar- 
cation between  his  Britannic 
majestv's  territories  and  those 
01  the  United  States,  to  the  west- 
J'ard  of  the  said  Lake,  so  far  as 
the  territories  of  the  United 
ft?tes  extend  in  that  qnart<»r: 


3d 

•JttUd  if  th«  timt  of  th«  •!. 
«haiig.of<ht  ratiticntiont  of<hJs 
«r««'y;  and  all  other  eapenses 
attend.ng  the  «,ud  commiisiona, 

t».e  two  pnrtli,..  ,^/.i^  ^;  J 
pr»vu,u,ty  a»r,rtain,d  and  allot!. 

death,  sicknesa,  resignation,  or 
nrcesinry  absenc«,  the  place  of 
«vary  such   commissioner,  ra. 
"Poclively,  shall  be  supplied  ia 
the  siime  manner  ns  such  com- 
miM.oner  was  first  appointed  i 
and  the  new  commissioner  shall 
take  the  same  oath,  or  affirmt- 
tion,  and  do  the  same  duties. 
,  It  i"  lurthcr  agreed  betweto 
iie  two  (2)  parties,  that,  in  cas« 
any  of  the  inlnnds  mentioned  in 
any  of  i\xQ  preceding  articlea, 

which  were  in  the  possession  of 
one  of  the  parties,  prior  to  th« 
commencftiient  of  the  present 
war  between  the  two  countries, 
iliould    by  the  decision  of  any 
oj  tlie  boards  of  co/nmissionera 
aforesaid,  (4)  f«U  „ithm  the  do- 
minions  of  the  other  party,  all 
grants  of  lands  made  previous  to 
that  time,  by  the  party  having 
had  such  possession,  shall  be  m 

valid,  as  ifsuch  island  or  islands 
had,  by  such  decision  or  deci- 
"ions  beon  adjudged  to  be  within 

the  dominions  of  the  party  hav. 
ing  had  such  possession. 

Art/cle  yill.    h  i,  J 

that  a  t,„e,  drawn  due  north  or 
»outh,  (a,  the  can  may  be)  from 
the  matt  northwestern  point  of  the 
Lak'  of  the  mod,,  until  it  ,hall 
intersect  the  fortyninth  parallel 
of  north  latitude,  and  from  th* 
point  (f  such  intersection  due 
west,  along  and  mth,  the  said 
parallel,  shall  be  the  dividing 
hpe  between   hi$  majesty',  ter- 


S0 


wmI  the  Kftiii  iiii«  hImM.  to  that  «x 
lent,  form  the  ioutherti  bouiititiry 
•r  hi*  Britannic  Mtij«tty*s  ttrri- 
|ori«i.  and  the  oortheni  bountin* 
ry  of  tbo  tcrritorios  of  tho  I'nitnd 
CTtntei.  It  b«inK  alMraya  diiitinctijr 
undentuod,  that  nothini^  in  the 
preattnt  nrticlr  Hhnll  \m  construed 
to    extend    to    (he    Northwcat 
Goa*t  of  America,  or  to  territo- 
ries belonKing  tu,  or  cbiiined  by, 
either  party,  on  the  continent  of 
America,  westward  of  the  Stony 
Mountains.     [And  it  is  further 
•grcoil,  the  Ntibjects  of  his  Bri- 
tannic majesty  ohail,  at  ail  times, 
have  uccoHs  from  his  Uritannic 
majtiity's  territories,  bv  htnd  or 
inland  i<uviKRtion,  into  the  afore- 
said territories   of  tho   United 
Sttitcs  to  the  river  Mississippi, 
with  their  goods,  effects,   ami 
merchandise,  and  that  his  .Britan- 
nic majesty's  subjects  shall  have 
•nd  enjoy  the  free  nattigntion  of 
the  said  river.] 

Article  IX. 

Approved. 


ritoriti  and  thnte  of  the  Unittil 
State;  to  th«  wttfward  of  tht  taid 
iMkt,  ai/ar  a$  their  latd  reipee- 
tive    terriloriet    itrttnd    in    that 
quarter;  and  that  the  laid  line 
ihatt,  to  that   extent,  form    the 
xoulhern  boundary  of  hia  Britau' 
nic  innjcily'e  taid  territories,  and 
the  northern  boundary  of  the  $aid 
territories  of  the  United  States : 
J'nyuiufd,  that  nothing  in  the  pre- 
sent article  shall  he  construed  to 
extend  to  the  M'orthwest  Coast  of 
America,  or  to  the.  territories  be- 
longing to,  or  claimed  by,  eithef 
party,  on  the  continent  of  America, 
to   the   westward    of  the   Stonjf 
Mountains. 


Artici-j:     IX.     The    United 
States  of  Anjeric.R  engage  to  pot 
an   end,  imnicdintoly  after  the 
ratification  of  the  present  treaty, 
to  hoHlilitios  with  all  the  tribes 
ornations  of  Indiana  with  whom 
they  may  be  at  war,  at  the  time 
of  such  ratification,  and  forth- 
with to  restore  to  such  tribes  or 
nations,    respectively,   all    the 
(loflsessions,   riglits,   and    privi- 
leges, which  they  may  have  en- 
joyed,  or  been  entitled  to,  in 
1811,  previous  to  such  hostili- 
ties :  Provided  always,  that  such 
tribes  or  nations  shall  agree  to 
desist  from  all  hostilities  against 
the  United  States  of  America, 
their  citizens,  and  subjects,  upon 
the  ratification  of  the   present 
treaty  being    notified    to  such 
tribes  or  nations,  and  shall  so 
desist  accordingly.  And  hit  Bri- 


*% 


Article  X, 
(nudtnjisible. 


AarrcLE  XF. 
Inadmissible. 


37 

tannic  majflaty  «ngtg«t,  on  bit 

after  the  f  tUfic.tlon  of  tin.  pr«. 

•ent  treaty,  to  hoitilitiei  with  til 
the  tribe,  or  nation,  of  Indiuii 

with  whom  he  may  be  at  war,  at 
the  time  of  .uch  raUficatloo,  and 
forthwith    to  reitore   to   ^ch 

all,  the  poMe«.ioni,  righto,  and 
pnvilegei,  which  they  may  hava 
«njoyed  or  been  entitled  to  in 
18II,  previoui  to  «uch  hoitiii^ 
ties  :  Provided  always,  that  such 
tribes  or  nations  shall  agree  ttf 
desist  from  all  hostilities  agajoat 
hi«  Bntannic  majesty  and  hia 
"ubjecto,  upon  the  ratification  of 
the  present  treaty  being  notified 

Ik  f"*^'»^*"^««'  or  natfons,  and 
«nall  so  desist  accordingly 

Article   X.    Hig    Britannic 
majesty  and  the  United  SUtea 
«hall,  by  all  the  mean,  in  thS 
power,  restrain  the  Indians  livimr 
within  their  respective  domin- 
ions  from    committing  hoftilj. 
ties  against  the  territory,  citi- 
zens,  or  subjects,  of  the  other 
party.     And  both  power,  also 
agree  and  mutually  pledge  them, 
aeives,  if  at  any  time  war  should 
unhappily  break  out   between 
them,  not  to  employ  any  Indiana, 
nor  to  admit  of  their  aid  and  co* 
operation  in  the  prosecution  of 
the  war  against  the  other  party. 

*ff»  r',?*^  X'-  Each  party  shil 
efl^ectually  exclude  from  it.  na- 
val and  commercial  service,  all 
•eamen,  seafaring,  or  other  per- 
sons,  subjects  or  citizens  of  the 
other  party,  not  naturaUzed  by 
the  respective  governments  of 

the  two  parties  before  the 

day  of-—.. 

Seamen,  or  other  persona, 
subjects  of  either  party,  who  shall 
aewrt  from  public  or  priratft 


m 


11 


Article  XU. 
InadouSBible. 


ships  or  vessels,  shall,  whea 
found  v^ithin  the  jurisdiction  of 
the  other  party,  be  surrendered, 
provided  they  be  demanded  with- 
in   from  the  time  of  their 

desertion. 

No  person  whatever  shall, 
upon  the  high  seas,  and  witboXit 
the  jurisdictioM  of  either  party, 
be  demanded,  or  taken  out  of  any 
ship  or  vessel  belonging  to  sub- 
jects or  citizens  of  any  of  the 
"•»'1;ies,  by  the  public  or  private 
i:>.  :;  id  ships  or  vessels  belonging 
■" .  r  in  the  service  of,  the  other, 
c.css  such  person  be,  at  the 
time,  in  the  actual  employment 
of  an  enemy  of  such  other  party. 

This  article  shall  continue  in 

force  for  the  term  of years. 

Nothing  in  this  article  contained 
r^-all  be  construed  thereafter  to 
effect  or  impair  the  rights  of  ei- 
ther party. 

Article  XII.  lifcitherof  the 
contracting  parties  shall  hereaf- 
ter be  engaged  in  a  war  against 
any  third  power,  to  which  war 
the  other  of  the  ^  <rtie9  shall  re- 
main neutral,  it  is  agreed  that 
every  vessel  of  the  neutral  par- 
ty sailing  for  a  port  or  place  be- 
longing to  the  enemy  of  the 
belligerent,  without  knowing  that 
the  same  is  besieged,  blockaded, 
or  invested,  may  be  turned  away 
from  siich  port  or  place,  but 
shall  not  be  detained,  nor  her 
cargo,  if  not  contraband,  be  con- 
fiscated, unless,  after  such  no- 
tice, she  shall  again  attempt  to 
enter ;  but  she  shall  be  permitted 
to  go  to  any  other  port  or  place 
she  may  think  proper.  Nor 
flhall  iny  vessel  or  goods  of  either 
party,  that  may  have  entered 
into  such  port  or  place  befoi-e 
the  same  was  besieged,  block- 
aded, or  in  vested  J  by  ihe  otber^ 


39 


AUTICIB  XIII. 
Inadnissible. 


and  be  found  therein  after  th» 
reduction  or  surrender  of  auch 
place,  be  liable  to  confiscation, 
but  shall  be  restored  to  the  pro- 
prietors thereof :  and,  in  order 
to  determine  what  characterize* 
a  blockaded  port,  that  denomina- 
tion IS  given  only  to  a  port  where 
there  is,  by  the  disposition  of  the 
power  which  attacks  it  with 
ships  stationary  or  sufficientlj 
near,  an  evident  danger  in  en- 
tering. 

ARTicLe  XIIL  It  is  agreed  that 
indemnity  shall  be  made  by  his 
Britannic  majesty  to  the  citizen! 
of  the  United  States,  for  all  losses 
and  damages  sustained  by  them 
during  the  late    war   between 
threat  Britain  and  France,  and  pri- 
or to  the  commencement  of  the 
present  war,  by  reason  of  irregu- 
lar or  illegal  captures,  seizures, 
or  condemnations  of  vessels  and 
other  property,  under  colour  of 
authority,  contrary  to  the  known 
and  established  rules  of  the  law 
of  nations.  And  it  is  also  agreed, 
that  indemnity  shall  be  made,  by 
each  of  the  contracting  parties, 
to  the  subjects  or  citizens  of  the 
other  party,  for  all  losses  and 
damage  sustaiaed  subsequent  to 
the  commencement  of  the  pre- 
sent war,  by  reason  of  the  sei- 
zure or  condemnation   of  the 
vessels  or  cargoes,  belonging  to 
the  subjects  or  citizens  of  the 
other  party,  which,  in  the  ordi- 
nary course  of  commerce  hap- 
Eenec;,  at  the  commencement  of 
ostilities,  to  be  in  the  ports  of 
the  other  party  ;  and  by  reason 
ot  the  destruction  of  unfortified 
towns,  and  the  pillage  or  destruc- 
tion of  private  property,  and  the 
enticement  and  carrying  away  of 
negroes,  contrary  to  the  known 
and  established  rules  anA ... 


iQanpAtfi 


m 

of  war,  betvreeD  civiliaed  na- 
tions. 

It  is  agreed  that,  for  the  pur- 
pose of  determining  the  indem- 
nities due  by  each  contracting 
party,   in  conformity  with  the 
provisions  of  this  article,  com- 
missioners shall  be  appointed, 
in  the  following  manner,  viz : 
one  commissioner  shall  be  named 
by  his  Britannic  majesty,  and  one 
by  the  President  of  the  United 
States,  by  and  with  the  advice 
and  consent  of  the  Senate  there- 
of; and  the  &aid  two  commission- 
ers shall  agree  in  the  choice  of 
a  third ;  or,  if  they  cannot  agree, 
they  shall  each   propose   one 
person,  and  of  the  two  names  so 
proposed,  one  shall  be  taken  by 
lot,  in  the  presence  of  the  two 
original  commissioners,    nd  the 
three  commissioners,  thus  ap> 
pointed,  shaJl  be  sworn  and  au*  ' 
thorized  and  empowered,  impar- 
tially, to  examine  into  all  such 
claims  and  complaints,  and  to 
determine  the  indemnities  which 
may  be  justly  due  for  the  same. 
The  said  commissioners  shall 
meet  at  — ,  and  shall  have  pow.- 
er  to  adjourn  to  such  other  place 
or  places  as  they  shall  think  fit ; 
they  shall  also  have  power  to  ap- 
point a  secretary,  swear  and  ex- 
amine "witnesses,  and  have  all  as- 
sistance and  facilities  necessary 
to  effect  the  object  of  their  ap- 
pointment. 

The  award  of  the  said  com- 
missioners, oramajorityof  them, 
shall,  in  all  cases,  be  final  and 
conclusive,  both  as  to  the  justice 
of  the  cidm  and  as  to  the  amount 
of  the  sum  to  be  paid  to  the 
claimant  and  claimants  ;  and  his 
Britannic  majesty  and  the  Unit- 
ed States  agree  and  undeiiake 
to  cause  the  sums  ao  awarded  tjt, 


#• 


)r  thepur- 
the  indem- 
contracting 
r  with  the 
icle,  com- 
appoJDted, 
aner,  viz : 
I  be  named 
ty,  and  one 
he  United 
the  advice 
late  there- 
>mmi88ion- 
!  choice  of 
mot  agree, 
•po«e   one 

>  names  so 
I  taken  by 
f  the  two 
I,   md  the 

thus  ap> 
n  and  au«  ' 
ed,  impar- 

>  all  such 
i,  and  to 
ties  which 
the  same, 
aers  shall 
lave  pow.- 
her  place 
think  fit ; 
ver  to  ap- 
r  and  ex« 
ive  all  as- 
lecessary 
their  ap- 

aid  com- 
'  of  them, 
Snal  and 
e  justice 
3  amount 
i  to  the 
and  his 
le  Unit- 
ideiiake 
arded  tji, 


ARTICtE  XIV. 
Inadmissible. 


41 

be  due  hy  them,  respectively,  to 
be  paid  in  specie,  to  such  claim- 
ant and  claimants,  without  de- 
duction, and  at  such  place  or 
places,  time  or  times,  as  shall  be 
awarded  by  the  commissioners. 
Article  XIV.  It  is  also  agreed, 
that  no  person  or  persons,  re- 
siding within  the  dominions  of 
one  of  the  parties,  who  may  have 
taken  part  with  the  other  party 
in  the  war  between  GreatBritain 
and  the  United  States,  shall,  on 
that  account,  be  prosecuted,  mo- 
lested, or  annoyed,  either  in  his 
person  or  property  ;  and  that  all 
such  persons  disposed  to  remove 
into  the  dominions  of  the  other 
party,  shall  be  allowed  the  term 

^[ —  months,  freely  to  sell 

their  property,  of  every  nature 
and  description  whatsoever,  and 
to  remove  accordingly. 

Article  XV.  This  treaty, 
when  the  same  shall  have  been 
ratified  on  both  sides,  and  the 
respective  ratifications  mutually 
exchanged,  shall  be  binding  on 
both  parties,  and  the  ratifica- 
tions shall  be  exchanged  at  (1) 

in  the  space  of- month* 

t  jrom  this  day,  or  sooner  if  po*. 
tible.  (2)  ^ 

in  faith  whereof,  we,  the  re- 
ipeclive  plenipotentiaries,  have 
Bigned  this  treaty,  and  have 
thereunto  affixed  our  seals. 

Done  at  Ghent,  the day 

of- —  one  thousand  eight  hun- 
nred  and  fourteen. 

remarks,  mad^  by  the  lair  onTetS  gthT^^^^^^^^  ''' 

ncan  minister'  note,  communicaUng  sai§  projecrof  1  i^^^^^^^  ^"" 

C.  HUGHES,  Jr. 

Secretary  American  Mission  extraordinaiy. 


Article  XV. 


(1)  Wasihington,  with  ajl  practi 
cable  despatch. 

(2)  practicable. 


4% 

Draft  of  arHcle  to  be  inserted  immediatelu  after  article  td  of  the 

•Ir/wrican  project,* 

All  priionera  of  war  tHkcn  on  cither  side,  an  well  by  land  m  tr 
■ea,  shall  b«  restored  as  soon  u»  practicable,  nfter  the  ratiticationi 
ofths  treaty  shall  have  been  exchanged,  on  their  paying  the  debts 
which  they  may  have  contracted  .luring  their  captivity.  The  two 
contracting  parlies  r«s,>erUvely  engage  to  discharge,  in  apecif..  the> 
advances  which  may  have  been  made  by  the  othSr,  for  the  .iste 
Bancc  and  mnii(eiianc<  ot  such  prisoners. 


Jtmerican  Ao.  7,  f»  reply  to  British  JVo.  7.      ^ 

OiiBUT,  3oth  Nov.  1814. 
*!.  \^«  ;.""'«"'P"««^  have  had  the  honour  to  receive  the  note  of 
the  British  plenipotentiaries  of  the  2Glh  instant,  together  with  their 
man^inal  alterations  and  suggestions,  on  the  several  articles  of  the 
project  of  H  treaty  of  peace,  projiosed  by  the  undersigned 

rhc  undersigned  consent  that  the  day  of  the  exchange  of  ralifi- 
cations  be  substituted  to  that  of  the  signature  of  the  treaty,  as  the 
time  for  the  cessation  of  hostilities,  and  for  regulating  the  periods 
after  which  prizes  at  s6a  shall  be  restored  :  it  being  understood 
that  measures  s.iall  be  adopted  for  a  speedy  exchange  of  rutifica- 
irons,  and  that  the  periods  in  the  second  article  shall  be  lixed  ia  a 
manner  corresponding  with  this  alteration. 

The  nndersignod  will  also  agree  to  the  new  article  renpectina 
prisoners,  and  to  the  mode  of  reference  proposed  by  the  British 
plenipotent^iaries  in  »he  third,  fourth,  Hfth,  sixth,  and  seventh  arti- 
cjes,  instead  of  that  which  had  been  proposed  by  the  undersigned 
But,  in  order  to  prevent  delay,  they  will  suggest  that  a  time  be 
hxed,  within  which  the  commissioners  shall  make  their  decisions 
and  reports. 

The  undersigned  will  decline  insisting  upon  the  10th,  12th,  and 
14th  articles,  and  upon  so  much  of  the  13th  article  as  relates  to 
indemnities  tor  losses  and  damages  sustained  subsequent  to  the 
commencement  of  Uie  present  war.  They  wish  to  discuss  the  cases 
of  vess^ils  and  property,  in  port  when  war  was  declared  or  known  • 
and  have  the  honour  to  enclose  a  copy  of  the  provision  made  in 
that  respect  by  the  United  States.  They  will  also  waive  the  resi- 
due of  that  (the  13th)  article,  and  the  Uth  article,  it  being  under, 
stood  that  the  rights  of  both  powers  on  the  subject  of  seamen,  and 
the  claims  of  the  citizens  and  subjects  of  the  two  contracting  par- 
ties,  to  indemnities  for  losses  and  damages  sustained  prior  to  the 
commencement  of  the  war,  shall  not  be  affected,  or  impaired  by 
the  omission  10  the  treaty  of  any  specific  provision  with  respect  to 
.those  two  subjects.  ' 

•  Proposed  by  the  British  ministers. 


and 


43 

lo  forhcBring  to  Jniiit  upon  the  diicuiiion  of  lubiect.  d.*«i. 
involving  intereMn  important  to  tbeircountrv  «,.l  •"*^^*""  ^l^tff 
un,ler«iKue.I  view  the  propom.U  off"rerbTfheii IVrnV  .''**  •''" 
«H  rounded  on  principled  tie,  mo«t  «oder«tV«n,Wirtn:''';r" 
give  the  «tronKo«t  evidence  ofthe  anxious  wi«h  of  H.-i^'     ^^ 
thnl  the  negotiation  nhould  be  bronchi  to  aT.ppI'l;:"^*'''^^"'"^"* 
Smcerclj.  pHrticipatinK  in  the  de«ire  expre^Jd  by  'the  Brill«h 
f  lempotentiarieB,  of  endeavouring  to  reconcile  the  preten. ionl  If 
loth  Kovernnjents  on  the  few  .ul.j.ct^  remaining  for  £cSn    he 
underH.g..ed  have  al«o  ««,ent«d  to  mo«t  of  the  alteration-  popoeS 
by  the  Bnt.8h  plen.potent.nrieMo  those  parts  of  the  project  which 
they  have  not  entirely  rejected.   0^  [tJ  name  of  these  ,UerS„. 
the  undersigned  are  compelled  by  their  duty  to  object.     ThJv  CI 
already  stated,  and  now  repeat,  that,  whilst  requiring  of  Gre!J 
Britain  no  sacrifice  whatever,  the  government  of  he  uJited  Stetea 
bas  not  authorized  the  undersigned  to  agree  to  any  stipSon   n! 
,     volv.ng  any  cession  of  the  territory,  or  the  .lerelictfon  of  any  of  th« 
essential  rights  of  the  people  of  the  United  States.  ^         ® 

The  objections  of  the  undersigned  are  to  one  of  the  alteration* 
suggested  by  the  British  plenipotentiaries  in -the  first  mTTo 
some  parts  of  the  preamble  of  the  third  article  ;  and  to  the  eLhth 
article  ;  and  they  have  also  some  other  verl,«Ulte  ,dion  to  1^1 
r!\uu\'TT  "  ««"^«''«"^<'>  «t  such  time  and  p^cj  t  2r 
suit  the  British  p  enipotentinries.  for  the  purpose  of  disclS 
hose  points  and  of  agreeing  on  the  places  and  Le«  lefrfnbS 
in  several  of  the  articles.  '*"'* 

The  undersigned  renew  to  the  British  plenipotentiaries  the  as 
Mrance  of  their  high  oonsideration.  '"unea  me  a»- 

JOim  QUINCY  ADAM.S, 
J.  A.  BAyARD, 
HENRY  CLAY, 
JONATHAN  RUSSELL, 

To  the  PUnipotenliarie.  oF  hi.  Bn.a„„i«        ^^^^^^  GALLATIN. 
inaj«My,  &G.  tee.  6lc. 

E*lrlut«fal<m0flheUniUdS(alapa„tdMyeih   1813 


Britith  Note  JVo.  9. 
The  undersigned  have  the  honour  to  arlfni>»io-i—  tu 


44 

■nd  in  compHancc  with  their  request  for  a  conference,  shall  be 
happy  to  recrive  them  at  the  Chartreux  to-morrow  at  12  o'clock. 
Ttie  undersigned  request  the  American  plenipoteutiariea  to  ac- 
cept the  assurance  of  their  high  consideration. 

GAMBIER, 

KENRY  GOULBURN, 
WILLIAM  ADAMS. 
Ghent,  Nov.  .loth,  181*.  . 


Protocol  of  a  conference^  held  the  1st  December,  1814,  a<  Ghent. 


.'enipotentiaries 
^s  amended  by 


At  a  conference  held  this  day,  the  Americ  ■■. 
proposed  the  following  alterations  in  their  proje 
the  British  plenipotentiaries. 

1.  In  article  1st,  strike  out  the  alteration  consisting  of  the  words 
*'  belonging  to,  and  taken  by,"  and  preserve  the  original  reading, 
viz.  '•  taken  by  either  party  from  the  other." 

This  alteration  was  objected  to  by  the  British  plenipotentiaries, 
and  after  some  discussion,  reserved  by  them  for  the  consideration 
of  their  government. 

2.  Transpose  alteration  consisting  of  the  words  *'  originally  cap- 
tured in  the  said  forts  or  places,  and  which  shall  remain  therein 
upon  the  exchange  of  the  ratifications  of  this  treaty,"  after  the 
words  "  public  property." 

Agreed  to  by  the  British  plenipotentiaries. 

3.  Article  2d.  The  term  to  be  fifteen  days  in  the  Channel,  in 
the  North  Seas,  in  all  parts  of  the  Atlantic  ocean  to  the  equinoctial 
line  or  equator,  and  in  all  parts  of  the  Mediterranean.  Two  months 
in  the  Atlantic  ocean,  to  the  latitude  of  the  Cape  of  Good  Hope, 
and  three  months  in  all  other  parts  of  the  w6rld. 

In  lieu  of  this  alteration,  the  British  plenipotentiaries  proposed 
the  following,  viz.  "  That  all  vessels  and  effects  which  may  be  taken 
after  the  space  of  twelve  days  from  the  period  of  the  exchange  of 
the  said  ratifications,  upon  all  parts  of  the  coasts  of  North  America, 
from  the  latitude  of  23  deg.  north,  to  the  latitude  of  47  deg.  north 
and  as  far  eastward  in  the  Atlantic  ocean  as  the  65  deg.  of  west 
longitude  from  the  meridian  of  Greenwich,  shall  be  restored  on 
each  side.  That  the  term  shall  be  thirty  days  in  all  other  parts  of 
the  Atlantic  ocean,  as  tar  eastward  as  the  entrance  of  the  British^ 
Channel,  and  southward  as  far  as  the  equinoctial  line  or  equator, 
and  the  same  time  for  the  Gulf  of  Mexico  and  all  parts  of  the  West 
Indies.  Forty  days  for  the  British  Channel  and  the  North  Seas, 
The  same  time  for  all  parts  of  the  Mediterranean,  and  one  hun- 
dred and  fifty  days  for  all  other  parts  of  the  world,  without  excep- 
tion." Which  was  reserved  by  the  American  plenipotentiaries 
for  consideration. 

4;  Article  3d.  After  the  words  "  all  island?  within  twenty  leagues 


45 


I  substitute 


of,'*  insert  "  any  part  of" 

ter  the  words  "  to  be  draw.,  uue  easi  irom  the  "  '       '     ' 

.Vee.Uo  by  the  BritUb  plenipotenitaries 
5.  Articl'i  3d.  Strike  out  the  words  «'  »!»>..«„.    i  •      .^ 
made  by  .he  government  of  the  Unhed  sTates  to  cir' *'T  ^/^ 
the  Bay  of  Fundy."  and  insert  «' wherpTJhl     ^'"?  i"^"** »» 

Agreed  to  b,    ,e  British  plenipotentiaries. 

article,  contredj-'tl^^t'te  "'aV"  .r.-'lr^."'  ""  '"-'«■« 

Mitll-e'  '."h^rrdT-i  tt  ttfo'ex^^Z'tr""''' "?""«»» '°  "''■ 
of  the."  ^    ^^"^  ^^^  marginal  words  "  many 

-SE^S^)^^^-^  Of  tBe 

^Ar  fi  m'rf  «\^"^'^^  plenipotentiaries 

the -safd^lt^  sTfar'at '  r;;;t  Il^^h:-^^'^-;  *^  ^*  ^-*--<»  o^ 
ries,"  instead  of  the  w;rds  '  the  ttr  tlr"  "  ^^Al'^ff*"*^^*  *«^"t«- 
^reedtobytheBSpre^irj^^^^^^^^ 

of  tr^olell?""^''  plenipotentiaries  for  the  consideration 

States  shall  continue  tr^niov' th  J rt '^''^'''**"^  °^  *•»«  United 
fish,  ,n  places  wi  hin  th^  /.T^ •  ^  '  •''^•''^y  *°  *«''«'  '^'•7.  and  cure 
secured^y  th^  brlr  treat!"nr'-'""'^''=''.°V^  Great  Britain,  a» 
river  Mississ|ppr!^ahL  the  eL^J'"'^  '  ""^  ^^^  ""'^'S^^'^"  °^  *»>« 
States,  shall  rema  n  fre^and  ooen  ^o'^h  J^T*^'''""?  °^  ^'^^  U""*** 
in  the  manner  secured  bvth/-^'?.     ^     «"l>Jf?ts  of  Great  Britain, 
that  the  subjects  of  his  Britanni'    ""'•  *^.'  'l'^  '*  "  f"'^'^"  agreed 
access,  from  such  plaTe  as  irvh.'"'^'/^/.'''"  '^^  all  timeT have 
Britannic  majesty's   aforesrifterrf"'''^  ^''  ^'^•*  P"^P°««'  ^^^  his 
hundred  miles  of  the  La^e  of  i/ w    f '  .'^*?'  '"''^  ^'^hin  three 
ries  of  the  United  States  to  tLr-   ^«^^^'"  the  aforesaid  territo- 
the  benefit  of  the  nlv's^^^^^^^^^^  '"  order  to^njoy 

and  merchandise.  XTelnoHa"''^'  w.th  their  goods,  effects, 
be  entirely  prohibited  on  '"Jf  «t'°"  "^^o  the  said  States  shall  not 

be  payable'^oHe  mportaUon  7tZ°*  "''^'  f ""!  *^"^'««  ««  -«"« 
ofthe  said  States  and  on  .In"       P^  ^a^e  into  the  Atlantic  por^ 
regulations.  ''    "'^ """  ^«"^o'''"'«g  with  the  usual  custom-house 

JsktS'"'"'  ""  ''''  ^'^^  t^"^  '^""^h  plenipotentiaries  for 


46 

The  American  plenipotentiaries  also  intimnled  their  willingness 
to  omit  Article  8th  altogether,  if  that  course  should  appear  more 
adviaable  to  the  British  plenipotentiaries.] 

The  American  plenipotentiaries  further  proposed,  in  conformity 
with  their  note  of  November  30th,  indemnitications  for  ships  de- 
tained in  British  ports  on  the  breaking  out  of  the  \var,  and  after- 
wards condemned  ;  which  was  resisted  by  the  liritish  plenipoten- 
tiaries. 

After  much  discussion  on  this  point,  the  conference  was  ad' 
jouraed. 


Protocol  of  Conference  on  December  10th,  1814.-  Ghent. 

The  Protocol  of  the  preceding  conference,  held  on  the  Ist 
instant,  was  settled. 

The  British  plenipotentiaries  stated  that  their  government  could 
not  consent  to  omit  the  words  in  article  1st,  "  belonging  to  either 
party  and  taken  by  the  other,"  unless  some  modiiication  should  be 
introduced,  cither  by  excepting  from  mutual  restitution  all  those 
territories  which  are  made  by  any  articles  of  the  treaty  the  subject 
of  reference  to  commissioners,  or  by  excepting  the  Passamaquoddy 
Islands  atone. 

Received  by  the  Amorican  plenipotentiaries  for  consideration. 

0:^[The  British  plenipotentiaries  then  stated,  that  with  respect 
(q  the  8th  article,  their  government  offered,  in  lieu  of  the  Americau 
proposals,  to  retain  the  amended  article  as  far  as  the  words  "  Stony 
Mountains,"  and  to  insert  the  following  stipulation  : 

"  His  Britannic  majesty  agrees  to  enter  into  negotiation  with  the 
United  States  of  America  respecting  the  terms,  conditions,  and  re- 
gulations, under  which  the  inhabitants  of  the  said  United  Slates 
shall  have  the  liberty  of  taking  fish  on  certain  parts  of  the  coast  of 
Newfoundland,  and  other  his  Britannic  majesty's  dominions  in  North 
America,  and  of  drying  and  curing  fish  in  the  unsettled  bays,  har- 
bours, and  creeks,  of  Nova  Scotia,  Magdalen  Islands,  and  Labrador,* 
as  stipulated  in  the  latter  part  of  the  3d  article  of  the  treaty  of  1783, 
in  consideration  of  a  fair  equivalent,  to  be  agreed  upon  between  his 
majesty  and  the  said  United  States,  and  granted  by  the  said  United 
States  for  such  liberty  aforesaid. 

"  The  United  States  of  America  agree  to  enter  into  negotiation 
with  his  Britannic  majesty  respecting  the  terms,  conditions,  and  re- 
gulations, under  which  the  navigation  of  the  river  Mississippi,  from 
its  source  to  the  ocean,  as  stipulated  in  the  8th  article  of  the  treaty 
of  1783,  shall  remain  free  and  open  to  the  subjects  of  Great  Bri- 
tain, in  consideration  of  a  fair  equivalent,  to  be  agreed  upon  be- 
tween his  majesty  and  the  United  States,  and  granted  by  his  ma- 
jesty."] 

Received  by  the  American  plenipotiaries  for  consideration. 

In  the  7th  article  the  British  plenipotentiaries  proposed,  aftei- 
the  words  *'  all  grants  of  laud  made  pr<.  vious  to,"  to  omit  the  word» 


47 

« to  tiiat  time  "jnd  insert  "previous  to  the  commencement  of  the 
war  ;'  so  that  the  %ne  would  read  "  all  grants  of  land  m«de  pre^ 
nous  to  the  comme  jcement  of  the  war."  ^ 

Agreed  to. 

The  British  plenipotentiaries  proposed  th«  inierUoa  of  the  fol- 
lowing  article  relative  to  the  slave  trade.  • "«»  oi  me  loi- 

"  Whereas  the  traffic  in  slaves  is  irreconcileable  with  the  orin 
ciples  of  humanity  and  justice,  and  whereas  both  his  majesty  wd 
the  United  States  are  desirous  of  continuing  their  efforts  to  prom^e 
Its  entire  abolition,  it  is  hereby  agreed  that  both  the  contraS 
parties  shall  exert  every  means  in  their  power  to  accompUsh  tf 
desirable  an  object."  —f  "«u  lo 

Received  for  consideration. 

<TmK®,''iu'^  plenipotentiaries  proposed  the  following  provision  • 
That  the  citizens  or  subjects  of  each  of  the  contracting  parties 
may  reciprocally  sue  in  the  courts  of  the  other,  and  shaU  m«ftt 
with  no  impediment  to  the  recovery  of  all  such  estates,  rights  orl. 
perties.  or  securities,  as  may  be  due  to  them  by  the  laSs  of  th« 
country  in  whose  courts  they  shall  sue."  ' 

Received  for  consideration. 

„  J''*^?!'*'  P'^^'Pf*^"*'?:'^^  P»'°P°«ed  in  the  preamble  to  the 
pro.     .  of  the  treaty  to  omit  the  words  "Admiral  of  the  White 

XlTeV' t  Ef'li^'^'"'^^^ '''  '''  ^^'^^^  "-  ^^ 
Agreed  to. 

The  American  plenipotentiaries  stated  that  possibly  doubta 
might  arise  as  to  the  geographical  accuracy  of  the  words  at  the  be- 
ginning of  the  8th  article-"  a  line  drawn  due  west  from  the  Ldie 
ot  the  Woods  along  the  49th  parallel  of  north  latitu  '    '' 

It  was  agreed  that  an  alteration  should  be  made  to  guard  against 
3uch  possible  inaccuracy.  *  «»*u«^5ainBi 

The  American  plenipotentiaries  proposed  the  followinir  altera- 
tion  in  the  draft  delivered  to  them  by  the  British  plenipo  eSt^ri" 

?fiTh  1,  1™  ^/}^  "^^^^  ^^  60  degrees  norlh  latitude,  and  to  the 
36th  west  longitude  ;  include  the  British  and  Irish  channels  in  the 
term  of  30  days;  inc  ude  the  Baltic  in  the  term  of  40  dTy"    instlaj 

"Trcor;:^TSe^r^^^^-^ 


I 


Protocolof  Conference  on  Decemhcr  12th,  1814 

.taTt'^rstred?'  '''  ^""''"^  ^°"'^^^"^^'  '^^'^  -  '^'^  '^^^  i'^- 

(p=[Aftermuch  discussion  relative  to  the  Istand  8th  articles,  the 
conference  ended  by  the  American  plenipotentiaries  undertak  ng 
to  return  an  answer,  in  writing,  to  the  propositions  brought  forward 
l>y  the  British  plenipotentiaries,  at  the  last  conferenre  f 


4f^ 


Atnerican  NoU,  No.  8,  tvritteu  after  the  Conference  of  \  2th  oJBe- 

cember,  1814. 

Ghent,  December  l4U),  1814. 

The  undersigned,  haring  considered  the  propositions  offered,  in 
the  conference  of  the  10th  instant,  by  the  British  plenipotentiaries, 
OB  the  few  subjects  which  remain  to  bQ  adjusted,  now  have  the  ho' 
noar  of  making  th^  communication  which  they  promised. 

The  first  of  them  relates  to  the  mutual  restoration  of  the  territo- 
ry taken  by  either  party  from  the  other,  during  the  war.  In  ad- 
■litting  this  principle,  which  the  undersigned  had  repeatedly  de-" 
dared  to  be  the  only  one  upon  which  they  were  authorized  to  treat, 
the  British  plenipotentiaries  h<id,  at  first,  proposed  an  alteration  in  v 
the  article  offered  by  the  undersigned,  limiting  the  stipulation  of  re- 
storing territory  taken  during  the  war,  to  territory  belonging  to  the 
party  from  which  it  was  taken.  The  objection  of  the  ondertigned 
to  this  alteration  was,  that  a  part  of  the  territory  thus  taken  being 
claimed  by  both  parties,  and  made  a  subject  of  conference  by  the. 
treaty,  the  alteration  would  leave  it  in  the  power  of  one  party  to 
judge  whether  any  portion  of  territory  taken  by  him  during  the  war, 
did  or  did  not  belong  to  the  other  party,  laying  thereby,  in  the  very 
instrument  of  pacification,  the  foundation  of  an  immediate  misun- 
derstanding, the  mothent  that  instrument  should  be  carried  into  ex- 
ecution. 

The  British  plenipotentiaries  have  now  proposed  to  omit  the 
words  originally  offered  by  them,  provided,  that  the  Passamaquod- 
dy  Islands  should  alone  be  excepted  from  the  mutual  restitution  of 
territory. 

The  consent  of  the  undersigned  to  this  solitary  e:^ception,  if 
founded  on  the  alleged  right  of  Great  Britain  to  those  islands,  might 
he  construed  as  an  implied  admission  of  a  better  title  on  her  part, 
than  on  that  of  the  United  States,  and  would  necessarily  affect  their 
claim.  The  only  ground  for  the  exception  consists  in  the  allega- 
tion of  the  British  plenipotentiaries  that  Great  Britain  had,  daring 
some  period  subsequent  to  the  treaty  of  peace  of  1783,  exercised 
jurisdiction  over  those  islands,  and  that  the  United  States  had  sub- 
sequently occupied  them,  contrary  to  the  remonstrances  of  the 
British  government,  and  before  the  question  of  title  had  been  ad- 
justed. 

Under  these  considerations,  the  undersigned,  unwilling  to  pre- 
vent the  conclusion  of  the  treaty  of  peace,  will  take  upon  them- 
selves the  responsibility  of  agreeing  to  the  exception  proposed, 
with  a  provision,  that  the  claim  of  the  United  States  shall  not, 
thereby,  be  in  any  manner  affected.  The  undersigned  have  ac- 
cordingly prepared  a  clause  to  that  effect,  and  which  provides,  also, 
that  the  temporary  possession  may  not  be  converted  into  perma- 
nent occupancy.  They  had  agreed  to  the  alteration  proposed  by 
the  British  plenipotentiaries  in  the  mode  of  reference  of  the  several 
boundaries  and  territory  in  dispute,  under  the  expectation  that  the 


4# 

propoitd  exception  to  «  general  restoraUon  V^rould  not  be  insisted 
on,  and  they  wjll  add,  that  the  objection  to  the  temporary  posses- 
flion  by  Great  Britain  of  the  Passamaquoddy  IslHnds,  would  be  con- 
sideraMy  lessened  by  adopting  a  mode  of  reference  which  would 
insure  a  speedy  and  certain  decision. 

[To  the  stipulation  now  proposed  by  the  British  plenipotentia- 
nes  88  a  substitute  for  the  last  paragraph  of  the  8th  article,  the  un- 
dersigned cannot  accede. 

The  proposition  made,  respecting  the  navigation  of  the  Missis- 
sippi, in  the  alteration  tirst  proposed  by  the  British  plenipotentia-  i 
ries  to  that  article,  was  unexpected.  In  their  note  of  the  31st  of  * 
October,  they  had  stated,  that  they  had  brought  forward  in  their 
note  of  the  21st  of  the  same  month,  all  the  propositions  which  they 
had  to  offer  ;  and  that  subject  was  not  mentioned  either  in  this  last 
mentioned  note,  or  in  the  first  conference  to  which  it  referred.  In  ' 
order  to  obviate  any  difficulty  arising  from  a  presumed  connectioft 
between  that  subject  and  that  of  the  boundary  proposed  by  the  8th 
article,  the  undersigned  expressed  their  willingness  to  omit  the  ar- 
ticle altogether.  For  the  purpose  of  meeting  what  they  believed 
to  be  the  wishes  of  the  British  government,  they  proposed  the  in- 
sertion of  an  article  which  should  recognise  the  right  of  Great  Bri- 
tain to  the  navigation  of  that  river,  and  that  of  the  United  States  to 
a  liberty  in  certain  fisheries,  which  the  British  government  consi- 
ucied  as  abrogated  by  the  war.  To  such  an  article,  which  they 
viewed  as  merely  declaratory,  the  undersigned  had  no  objection, 
and  have  offered  to  accede.  They  do  not,  however,  want  any 
new  article  on  either  of  those  subjects  :  they  have  offered  to  be 
suenl  with  regard  to  both.  To  the  stipulation  now  proposed,  or  to 
any  other,  abandoning,  or  implying  the  abandonment  of,  any  richt 
m  the  fisheries  claimed  by  the  United  States,  they  cannot  subscribe 
As  a  stipulation  merely,  that  the  parties  will  hereafter  negotiate 
concernmg  the  subjects  in  question,  it  appears  also  unnecessary. 
Yet,  to  an  engagement  couched  in  general  terms,  so  as  to  embrace 
all  the  subjects  of  difference  not  yet  adjusted,  or  so  expressed  as  to 
imply  in  no  manner  whatever  an  abandonment  of  any  right  claimed 
by  the  United  States,  the  undersigned  are  ready  to  agree.] 

Since  neither  of  the  two  additional  articles  proposed  by  the  Bri- 
tish plenipotentiaries  was  included  amongst,  or  is  connected  with 
the  subjects  previously  brought  forward  by  them,  it  is  presumed 
they  are  offered  only  for  consideration,  as  embracing  objects  of 
common  and  equal  interest  to  both  parties.     The  undersigned  will 
accede  to  the  substance  of  the  article  to   promote  the  abolition  of 
the  slave  trade.    They  cannot  admit  the  other  article,  which  to 
them,  appears  unnecessary.     The  couns  of  the  United  States  will 
without  It,  be  equally  open  to  the  claims  of  British  subjects  ;  and 
they  rely  that,  without  it,  the  British  courts  will  be  equally  open  t« 
the  cliiims  of  the  citizens  of  the  United  States. 


Th«  undesigned  renew  to  the  British  plenipotentiaries  the  m^ 
iurance  of  their  high  coniideraUoo.  ««"«rid9  me  m- 

wSL**^*^'^^  ADAMS, 


To  thfl  Plenipotentiaries  of  hit  Britaii'^ic 

majesty,  &c.  &c.  fcc. 


JAMES  A.  bayard; 
HENRV  CLAV, 
JONATHAN  RUSSELL. 
ALBERT  GALLATIN. 


Such  of  he  islands  in  the  Bay  of  Passanaquoddy  as  are  claimed 
by  both  parlies,  shall  remain  in  the  possession  of  the  party  in  whwe 
occupation  they  may  beat  Ihe  time  of  the  exchange  of  the  raTifica! 
ions  of  this  treaty   until  the  decision  respecti,.>g  the  title  to  the  safd 
slands  shall  have  been  made,  in  conformity  with  the  4th  artkle  if 
this  treaty.     But  if  such  decision  shall  not  have  taken  place  wth'n 
Zr~;^T'u*  f  u****  exchange  of  the  ratifications  of  this  treaty 
such  islands  shall  be  restored  to,  and  until  such  decision  mav  'ake 
place,  shall  be  retained  by,  the  party  who  had  possession  'of  the 
.ame  at  the  commencement  of  the  war.     No  disposition  made  by 
this  treaty  of  the  intermediate  possession  of  the  islands  and  territ^^ 
nes,  claimed  by  bo^h  parties,  shall,  in  any  manner  whatever   be 
construed  to  affect  the  right  of  either.         ^  wnatever.  be 


British  Note  JVo.  10,  in  answer  to  American  JVo.  8. 
The  undersigned  have  had  the  honour  to  receive  the  note  of  the 
American  plenipotentiaries,  dated  on  the  14th  instant,  statng  their 
consent  to  except  the  Passamaquoddy  Islands  from  the  mutuVl  re' 
ZTnif^  ^fT'l  T""'!*^  ^"""'"S  'he  war.  provided  the  clal  of 
h!  iTf     ^*^'  'if  \°*  ^^  *"  «"y  '"»""«'•  «ff«<=ted  thereby.   To 
he  art  cle  proposed  by  the  American  plenipotentiaries,  so  fSrasit 
L'vlfi  °  ^'"t°^J«^^  th«  undersigned  are  willing  to'agree  ;  bu 
they  object  as  before  intimated  by  them,  to  that  p^rt  of  the  pro. 
posed  article  which  would  make  it  imperative  on  the  commfs^on- 

th7«  hP^luil'/'''  •?""'''?  ''''^'''  «"y  ^^^^'l  *•'"«'  trusting  that  on 
this  head  the  American  plenipotentiaries  will  be  satisfied  with  their 
dec  aration  that  it  is  the  intention  of  his  majesty's  government  to  do 
all  that  belongs  to  them  to  obtain  a  decisiin  without  losTof  Ume 

ilten  J.7rf  '  f '^'  '''f'  '"•'J^'"^^'  '^•"  ^«  ^«""^  to  omit  the  c  W 

ntended  to  enforce  a  decision  within  some  limited  time,  and  to  con- 

tain  a  slight  alteration  in  the  third  clause,  by  substituting  in  th°e 

.  i^^.K°  ';'*'' «V^g«''ds  the  substitution  proposed  by  the  undersien- 
ed  for  the  last  clause  of  the  8th  article,  a's  it  was  offered  solely  ^th 
TJrr  °^«««'"'"g  the  object  of  the  amendment  tendered  by  the 
American  plenipotentiaries  at  the  conference  of  the  1st  instant,  no 


6i 

diflSculty  wHI  be  made  id  witbdrawins  it     THa  „uA.^-       t 
ferring  to  the  declaration  a,ade  by  the'm'tt  tl'l"„te"«?«j.' f^ 
«th  of  August,  that  th«  privileges  of  fishinc  within'Hifr     f    V  u 
B.it.,h  sovereignty,  and  of  uBing  the  Britidf  teSor^'/?'**  ""^^^^ 
connected  with  the  fisheries,  were  what  Great  fc^^^^^ 
tendtograntwitho.it  equivalent,  are  not  des  100^0/ in*^  T^ 
any  article  upon  the  subject.     With  the  view  of  ron.'*^"''!."^ 
jhey  consider  as  the  only'objcction  ioZZZelt7ZX\l^l\' 
the  treaty,  the  undersigned  agree  to  adon*  fh«  ^.rT  ^  , '^'""o"  ot 

The  undersigned  avail  themselves  of  this  oooortuniiv  ♦«  .      «, 

z^v^lss^''-  "^"•"  '•■""»''  «'•'-  "■eCSf.fts::; 

GAWBIER, 

HENKY  GOULDBURN. 
Oheut,  December  22.  I814.  WILLIAM  ADAMS. 

Accompanying  British  Mete  JVo.  10 

No  disposition  made  by  this  treatv  n<*  tn  «./.»,  ^^ 
Ulandsand  territories  cJmed  J;  b1[h  pa  LsshaTir'"  '^  "'" 
whatever,  be  construed  to  affect  the  rigCfeithe"'        ^^  '"•'*^"" 

Protoco/  0/  Conference. 

At  a  conference  held  this  day.  the  proltoJofThr"""';'  '''*' 
ference  was  settled.  ^        protocol  of  the  preceding  cpn- 

The  Am^ican  plenipotentiaries  intimated  their  rea.lin.«  * 
cede  o  the  propositions  contained  i„  the  note  of  the  Rr.tf .    ?  ^t 
potcntiaries,  of  the  22d  instant.  ^"^'^'^  P'*""'" 

?„^l^''l!°T'"^  alterations  were  then  agreed  to : 
IV''®^'''^^''^'^'«'«fte»- the  word'' cease ''ornJt^h.      -^ 
''  ^  K^fi^^f  «^  "^^^^  ratifications,"  anH^s^r"  as  sZ  '    ,?'^- 
treaty  shall  have  been  ratified  by  both  part  es  "     IZ?^  f    L'* 

the  words  ..  belo^n^XteX^^ Ja^S"^^'  ^^'i^^  ''irV' 
words  "  8  gn  ne  of  this  trpafv  "  Jno^  .  *u  .    ^J'*       ■^"<^''  the 


12 


belong,"  insert,  ferbatim,  the  words  of  the  amendment  inclosed  in 
4he  note  of  the  British  plenipotentiaries  of  the  22d  instant,  6IIing  up 
the  blank  with  the  word  "  fourth," 

2d  article.  The  second  article  was  altered  so  as  to  read  as  fol- 
low* : 

Ar+icle  II.  Immediately  after  the  ratification  of  this  treaty  by 
both  parties,  as  hereinafter  mentioned,  orders  shall  be  sent  to  the 
armies,  squadrons,  odicers,  subjects,  and  citizens,  of  the  two  pow- 
ers, to  cease  from  all  hostilities;  and  to  prevent  all  causes  of  com- 
plaint, which  might  arise  on  account  of  the  prizes  which  may  be 
taken  at  sea  after  the  said  ratifications  of  this  treaty,  it  is  recipro- 
cally agreed,  that  all  vessels  and  effects  which  may  be  taken  after 
the  space  of  twelve  days  from  the  said  ratifications,  upon  all  parts 
of  the  coast  of  North  America,  from  the  latitude  of  twenty-three 
degrees  north  to  the  latitude  of  fifty  degrees  north,  and  as  far  east- 
ward in  the  Atlantic  ocean  as  the  thirty-sixth  degree  of  west  longi- 
tude from  the  meridian  of  Greenwich,  shall  be  restored  on  each 
side  ;  that  the  time  shall  be  thirty  days  in  all  other  parts  of  the 
Atlantic  ocean  north  of  the  equinoctial  line  or  equator ;  and  the 
same  time  for  the  British  and  Irish  Channels,  for  the  Gulf  of  Mexico, 
and  all  parts  of  the  West  Indies  ;  forty  days  for  the  North  Seas, 
for  the  Baltic,  and  for  all  other  parts  of  the  Mediterranean  ;  sixty 
days  for  the  Atl^i^tic  ocean,  south  of  the  equator,  as  far  as  the 
latitude  of  the  Cape  of  Good  Hope  ;  ninety  days  for  eveiy  other 
part  of  the  world  south  of  the  equator,  and  one  hundred  and  twenty 
days  for  all  other  parts  of  the  World  without  exception. 

It  was  agreed  that  the  article  respecting  prisoners  of  war  should 
be  the  third  article,  and  that  the  words  "  as  hereinafter  mention- 
ed," should  be  substituted  for  the  words,  "  shall  have  been  ex- 
changed." . 

The  articles  numbered  in  the  original  project  3,  4, 5,  6, 7,  to  be 
Respectively  numbered  4,  5,  6,  7,  8. 

In  the  4th  article,  it  was  agreed  that  the  blank  should  be  filled 
up  with  the  words  "  St.  Andrews,  in  the  province  of  New-Bruns- 
wick." 

In  the  5th  article,  it  was  agreed  that  the  blank  should  be  filled 
up  with  the  words  "St  Andrews,  in  the  province  of  New-Bruns- 
»/ick." 

Ndar  the  end  of  the  5th  article,  substitute  the  word  ••  fourth" 
for  "  third." 

In  the  6th  article,  it  was  agreed  to  fill  up  the  blank  with  the 
words  "  Albany,  in  the  State  of  New-York,"  and  to  substitute  the 
word  '*  fourth"  for  «'  third,"  in  the  concluding  paragraph. 

In  the  7th  article,  substitute  the  word  "  fourth"  for  '•  third,"  in 
the  last  paragraph. 

It  was  agreed  that  the  article  respecting  the  African  slave  trade 
should  be  the  10th  article,  and  that  the  words  "  use  their  best  en- 
deavours," should  be  substituted  for  the  words  "exert  every 
means  in  their  power." 


sad  as  fol- 

treaty  by 
entto  the 
two  pow- 
B8  of  com- 
h  may  be 
s  recipro* 
tkeD  after 
D  all  parts 
!Dty-three 
}  far  east- 
rest  longi- 
1  OD  each 
rts  of  the 
;  and  the 
>fMexico, 
>rth  Seas, 
an  ;  sixty 
ar  as  the 
jiy  other 
nd  twenty 

ar  should 
mention- 
been  ex- 

i,  7,  to  be 

be  filled 
iv-Bruns- 

be  filled 
ir>Bruns- 

'  fourth" 

with  the 
ilute  the 

lird,"  in 

ve  trade 
best  en- 
:t  every 


53 

The  15th  article  of  the  proiect  tn  >.«         ^ 
agreed  to  insert  in  it,  after  thrwords  «  n^  ^".^''^1'^  ^^ '  *»  ^^^^ 
-  without  alteration  by  either  ofXrn„r  r**"'  ''^^''    **"«  '^o^ds 

Omit  the  words  "  ii?h  all  orarftl?  !f  ^""S  P^''"^^-" 
blank  with  the  word  "  foSr  "  '^Insertl^L  fr*'''-:.'  ^'"  "P  *»»« 
words  "  in  triplicate."  The  bS  ^f  ^  ''?'**  "  '*°°«'"  ^he 
article  formerly  proposed  by  them  t  to  2T.'"''  "^'S«^  »»>« 
cuted  by  the  citizens  or  subject"  of^onp"?  °^  ^'^  l^  ^^  P''o««- 
justice  of  the  other.  ResS  bv  *h?  a  "  '°''  '°  ^^^  ^«"rts  of 
ries.  resisted  by  the  American  plenipolentia- 

The  conference  wis  adjourned  to  the  24th  ina*  e     .^ 
of  signing  the  treaty.  ®  ^^^**  ^°^*'  ^'^^  ^^e  purpose 

3%e  American  Plenipotentiaries  to  the  Secretary  of  State. 

Sm-W«l,         «,      u  Ghewt.  25th  December,  1814. 

thrJe'copTe   ^TtlettZT:!^^^^^^^^  <>-  ^^ the 

United  States^ig^ed  LrevruTn.  bv  ^'^^'"^  ^"^«'°  a°d  the 

Britannic  majest/and  by  us  ^    ^   ^  Plenipotentiaries  of  his 

The  papers,  of  which  copies  are  likPwU     ««     r 
exhibit  to  you  80  fully  the  progress  nfthi     "ow  forwarded,  will 
departure  hf  the  Chauncey  that  fewliv  "^P^'^^'""  ^^nce  the 
will  be  necessary.     It  mav  bp  LST  ^'i^'^'^^^l,  '•emarks  from  us 
thatinth^interi«^^etn^hnr;l'  "^' ''"T^'^^r,  to  state. 
, treaty  Was  senTtoibeBritrsh  pfen  2.  7  *"  °" f"*'*  P'^^**^*  ^^ '^ 
communicated  to  us  the  aLer^o  ^^ /"^"^^^^ 
had  sent  by  Mr  Dallas  nnnT.      ?     '^^^  despatches  which  we 

published  fnThe  S  S  ates  Cre  ^^^^^^^^^^       T-  ".^''^'^  ^«^  "^^^^ 

In  declining  to  insist  on  the  S/^''''-^'' '"  ^"^land. 
indemnities,  ^e  -adTa  formal  dSaSThS^P'T^^^^  '^"^ 
parties,  on  the  subject  of  seamen  anTfhL    I  '^^  "Sbts  of  both 

losses  and  damages  sustained  pLrti.h.''"'  '°  '"demnities  for 
war,  should  not  be  aWcted  or   mp^red^  ^^  »*>« 

F?omlrr''^p^T'°"  on  S7wo'/ui^:tr'"""' '"  '^^ 

rrom  the  time  when  the  oroiPrt  nf^K^    """jccis. 
was  returned,  with  the  pr^Ce^L^^ols^i  •';'^''^'°*^^  "^^  "«' 
unless  new  pretensions  on  the  part  of  ftrp?.^R  v  "'  •'♦PPa'-eut,  that 
vanced,  the  only  important  SifiJrf        ^'^eat  Britain  should  be  ad- 
were  those  rela^ir^  he  ^Ifr^  be  discussed, 

during  the  «'ar  ;  t^o   he  navrati  Tf  ^p  T 
'.ubjects,  and  to  the  right  of  £0600?/  Irth    r  "''PP*  *^>  '^"'^'^b 
»'  sheries  within  the  British   urisSn      In  .  ^Tl-^  ^'^'^'  *«  '^^ 
titutiou  of  captured  territorf  whtrw;  h  T    ""^  of  a  general  res- 
governoient,  It  fir*t,  wished^t;  confinnt  to  tfl?"'''.'^'  '^'  ^"^'»^ 

d.d  not  belong  to  tL  ^»>e^^a2f  li::^:^^'^ ^1;^^^ 


d4 

they  acknowledged  it  to  be  tbeir  object,  tbat  each  party  should, 
until  a  decision  had  taken  place  with  respect  to  the  title,  retain 
possession  of  all  the  territory  claimed  by  both  parties,  which  might 
have  been  taken  by  such  party  during  the  war.  They  proposed, 
however,  to  limit  the  exception  from  mutual  restitution,  to  the  is- 
lands in  the  Bay  of  Passamaquoddy .  As  it  had  been,  on  both  sides, 
admitted,  that  the  title  to  these  islands  was  disputed,  and  as  the 
method  of  settling  amicably  those  disputes  was  provided  for  in  the 
treaty,  we  had  not  expected  that  the  British  government  would  ad: 
here  to  the  demand  of  retaining  the  temporary  possession  of  those 
isla^ids.  We  insisted,  therefore,  on  their  being  included  in  the 
general  restoration,  until  we  had  reason  to  believe  that  our  further 
perseverance  would  have  hazarded  the  conclusion  of  the  peace 
itself;  we  finally  consented,  as  an  alternative  preferable  to  the 
continuance  of  the  war,  to  this  exception,  upon  condition  that  it 
should  not  be  understood  as  impairing,  in  any  manner,  the  right  of 
the  United  States  to  these  islands.  We  also  urged  for  a  stipulation,^ 
requiring  an  ultimate  decision  upon  the  title  within  a  limited  time  ; 
but  to  this  we  also  found  opposed  an  insuperable  objection,  and  we 
were  finally  induced  to  accept,  in  its  stead,  a  declaration  of  the 
British  plenipotentiaries  that  no  unnecessary  delay  of  jthe  decision 
should  be  interpo<jed  on  the  part  of  Great  Britain. 

At  the  first  conference  on  the  8th  of  August,  the  British  pleni- 
potentiaries had  notified  to  us,  that  the  British  government  did  not 
intend,  henceforth,  to  allow  to  the  people  of  the  United  States, 
without  an  equivalent,  the  liberties  to  fish,  and  to  dry  and  cure 
fish,  within  the  exclusive  British  jurisdiction,  stipulated  in  their 
favour,  by  the  latter  part  of  the  third  article  of  the  treaty  of  peace 
of  1J83.  And,  in  their  note  of  tfie  19th  of  August,  the  British 
plenipotentiaries  had  demanded  a  new  stipulation  to  secure  to 
British  subjects  the  right  of  navigating  the  Mississippi :  a  demand, 
which,  unless  warranted  by  another  article  of  that  same  treaty  of 
1783,  we  could  not  perceive  that  Great  Britain  had  any  colourable 
pretence  for  making.  Our  instructions  had  forbidden  us  to  suffer 
ou"*  right  to  the  fisheries  to  be  brought  into  discussion,  and  had  not 
authorized  us  to  make  any  distinction  in  the  several  provisions  of 
the  third  article  of  the  treaty  of  1783,  or  between  that  article  and 
any  other  of  the  same  treaty.  We  had  no  equivalent  to  offer  for  a 
new  recognition  of  our  right  to  any  part  of  the  fisberies,  and  we 
had  no  power  to  grant  any  equivalent  which  might  be  asked  for  it 
hy  the  British  government.  We  contended  that  the  whole  treaty 
of  1783,  must  be  considered  as  one  entire  and  permanent  compact, 
not  liable,  like  ordinary  treaties,  to  be  abrogated  by  a  subsequent 
war  between  the  parties  to  it ;  as  an  instrument  recognising  the 
rights  and  liberties  enjoyed  by  the  people  of  the  United  States  as 
an  independent  nation,  and  containing  the  terms  and  conditions  on 
which  the  two  parts  of  one  empire  had  mutually  agreed  thence« 
forth  to  constitute  two  distinct  and  separate  nations.  In  consent- 
ing, by  that  treaty,  that  a  part  of  the  North  American  continent 


5A 

shoald  remain  aubiect  to  the  Britiali  i«^.A:  *• 
United  States  had-'reserved  to  th"msii?^^^^^^^^ 
haderer  before  enjoyed,  of  HsbrnTu^n  J^Jt '^^^^^^^^ 
and  of  drying  and  '^ urine  fish  nnnn  ♦hiTi.         ^^^  ^^  thfrcoalts, 
tion  had  beeS  agr    dio  bv  theThP^  .«  ^''?''  ""^^  <»»"  r^^n^a- 
not  why  thin  iZ.  ly^hen^no  new  erLt  h„T^    ^'''^'    ^^  »«'' 
»  prior  right,  always  enjoTed  shoufd  b^  fllT?  f'^^^^S-'^o^  of 
more  than  any  other  of  thrrLhl-«?  "^^ '°^(«'te«'  by  a  ^ar,  anj 
or  why  we  shLuZel ane^t^u^^^^^^^  jndependencei 

than  we  needed  a  new  aS  in  H«.i  /o'/ts  enjoyment  more 
Britain  treated  with  «s  aslree  overe?^'  Inl'^/  ^'J'^  ^'^^' 
We  siated  this  principle,  in  gt^erlf  ter^'«  ?  /k**  0^^".^^ *  «*"*««• 
fentiaries.  in  the^ote  which^we  seit'tr/h  *^!^^"t•«h  plenipo- 
the  treaty  ;  and  we  alleged  it  J!  ?k  *''T  '^'''»  our  project  of 

stipulation  was  dleVed  by  onrlv^'  ^''''?*^  "P*^"  ^^icf  no  new 
the  people  of  the  U^hed  StatI/  n  rr'"l"^"^«««'^  ^  secure  to 
lated  in'their  favour  bj'th'ifr'iUns"!^  "b^  aes  stip,, 

oi  our  note  was  given  bv  ihp  Rr;*;  u    1     •       ^°  ''^P'y  to  that  part 
turning  our  project  "fa  tre%^"  L V  ^;;P;^«'';'«"««  ;  »>"».  in^-e- 
articles,  stipulating  a  right  for  Br  tlh  «!*''        '^  *°  °"^  ""^  **^« 
"saippi.    Without  adveSn-?o  the  ^L,^^'f  *?  "«^'8«*«  the  Mis- 
usage,  if  the  principle  were  ust  th!tT  f  ^^"'^7"'*  immemorial 
peculiar  character,  remained  "n  force  in  «n  f*^  °^  '^^^'  ^'''^  "« 
ing  the  war.  no  ne^  stipXuoi  was  nerP«J  '\  P"'^''  "otwithstand- 
jects  of  Great  Britain  the  S  ofJ^^^^T^^t''  '.'/"'"«  *<>  *»•«  «"«>. 
as,  that  right  was  secured  bf  the  "^ertfSip'.  *^*^^"''PP*'  ««  ^" 
hand,  no  stipulation  was  necessarvfn  5l      ^P  V"''  **"  the  other 
United  States  the  liberty  tXh  JL  tn  H  ""'V^  ^'^^  P^*'?'*  of  the 
exclusive  jurisdiction  of  Great  BHtan    W  '"'I  ^'.^'  ^'*'^'»  ^^e 
tion  of  the  Mississippi  as  a  nlw  .L'      .i^^^^  '^^^'^  the  naviga- 
fhould  grant  it  withZ  an  equtaS"'  if't^ev'^"?  1°*.  I'P^*^*  ^« 
had  been  granted  in  1783,  thev  must  *  r/l   ^      .t^  '*.  ***'=''"'^  't 
peop  eof  the  United  States  to theTibertv to  Si'^  '}^  .''"™  °f  *'^« 
fish,  m  question.    To  place  both  ««*  7  u  ^'**  ^"'^  to  dry  and  cure 
versy,  a  majority  of  us  dete^^fned^to  nl^?°"f  ""  ^'""'^  ^^'^tro- 
firming  both^ights  :  or  wr^ffJrpH    °Sf'*°  ^'^'"'t  an  article  con- 
in  the  treaty  u^on  boJh.'and  to  wlt  «.r'"!K*''"^L  *°  »^«  ^"^"t 
finmg  the  boundary  from  the  Lake  of  the  Wo!f^^'  ?"'  "l"^'^'  ^^^ 
finally  agreed  to  this  last  prdposal  b„t  nn*     ^^.'  I'^^tward.     They 
an  article  stipulating  for  aHrri'ego  iatlT'  '^'^  ^'^  ^''^'''^ 
given  by  Great  Britain  for  the  navi?aS  o?o    an  equivalent  to  be 
the  United  States  for  the  liberty  S^h.J  k'^  M'ss'ssippi.  and  by 
'sh  jurisdiction.     This  article  w?«?        ^^^^"^'  ^'thin  the  Bri- 
•ts  professed  object,  s  nee  bo  h  ^aZZ^^^'T'^^'y^  ^'^'^  '-'«Pect  ta 
without  it,  to  negotiate  upon  thfrs^bwtrfJ^  '"J'^^*'  P°^«^ 
rejected  it.  although  its  adontinf    ^".''i^t^  *^  they  pleased.    We 
d-y  of  the  49th  dlg^.^^  of  iffde  we  f  ofT  ^  '"'^  ^«"«- 
because  .t  .ould  have  been  a  Sa7:Lt!;;i;;t-a^^  ^^^ 


66 

our  claim  to  the  liberty  as  to  the  fisheries,  recognised  by  the  trea- 
ty of  1783. 

You  will  perceive  by  the  correspondence  that  the  9th  article 
was  offered  us  as  a  sine  qua  non  and  an  ultimatum.  We  accepted 
it,  not  without  much  hesitation,  as  the  only  alternative  to  a  rup* 
ture  of  the  negotiation,  and  with  a  perfect  understanding  that  our 
government  was  free  to  reject  it,  as  we  were  not  authorized  to  sub- 
scribe to  it. 

To  guard  against  any  accident  which  might  happen  in  the  trans- 
mission of  a  single  copy  of  the  treaty  to  the  United  States,  the  Bri- 
tish plenipotentiaries  have  consented  (o  execute  it  in  triplicate  : 
and  as  the  treaty  with  the  British  ratification  may  be  exposed  to  the 
same  danger,  the  times  for  the  cessation  of  hostilities,  the  restora- 
tion of  capture?  at  sea,  and  the  release  of  prisoners,  have  b^en  fixed, 
not  from  the  exchange  of  ratifications,  but  from  the  ratification  on 
both  sides,  without  alteration  by  either  of  the  contracting  parties. 
We  consented  to  the  introduction  of  this  latter  provision,  at  the 
desire  of  the  British  plenipotentiaries,  who  were  willing  to  takea 
full,  but  were  unwilling  to  incur  the  risk  of  a  partial  ratification,  as 
the  period  from  which  the  peace  should  be  considered  as  concluded. 
We  are  informed  by  them  that  Mr.  Baker,  their  secretary,  is  to 
go  out  to  America  with  the  British  ratification. 

We  have  the  hoiiyur  to  be,  very  respectfully,  sir,  your  most 
humble  and  obedient  servants, 

JOHN  QUiNCY  ADAMS. 

J.  A.  BAYARD, 
,    HENRY  CLAY, 

JONATHAN  RUSSELL, 

ALBERT  GALLATIN. 


Extract  of  a  letter  from  Jonathan  Russell,  esq.  lo  the  Secretary  of 
State,  dated  Ghent,  25th  December,  1814. 

"  My  necessary  occupation,  at  this  moment,  in  aiding  my  col- 
leagues to  prepare  our  joint  despatches^  puts  it  out  of  my  power  to 
furnish  you  with  any  details  or  observations  exclusively  my  own. 

"  As,  however,  you  will  perceive  by  our  despatch  to  you  of  this 
date,  that  a  majority  only  of  the  mission  was  in  favour  of  offftri"ng 
to  the  British  plenipotentiaries,  an  article  confirming  the  British 
right  to  the  navigation  of  the  Mississippi,  and  ours  to  the  liberty  as 
to  the  fisheries,  it  becomes  me,  in  candour,  to  acknowledge,  that  I 
was  in  the  minority  on  that  question.  I  must  reserve  to  myself 
the  power  of  communicating  to  you,  hereafter,  the  reasons  which 
influenced  me  to  differ  from  a  majority  of  my  colleagues  m  that 
occasion  ;  and  if  they  be  insufficient  to  support  my  opinion,  I  per- 
suade myself  they  will,  at  least,  vindicate  my  motives." 


57 

Mr.  Oallatin  to  the  Secretary  of  State. 

ancea  in  some  of  the  neiffhbnnrinir  s*.*-,..  u  j      '  „    appear- 

*.«•»/.*  nr  »L  iT  "5'g""0""ng  btates,  had  a  most  unfavourablft 
effect  Of  the  probable  result  of  the  Congress  at  Vienna  w/w 
no  correct  informat  on.    The  views  of  ah  thl  r  '    ®  """ 

were  precisely  known,  from  dartT  dfy  to  the  bS"  ^"7" 
From  neither  ofthem  did  we  in  anv  sS*.  J  •  ^"^'^^ '".'""try. 
of  their  intentions,  of  ?he  general  orosner;  nf  ?-"'*  '"^  "•*'%""°» 
interest  they  took  'in  our  cE  litrS  BrSr^'n''  "^  '^"^ 
reason  to  believe  that  all  ofthem  wire  deTrouMh     it  L^hUcTnu! 

of  our  ability  to  resist    alonp    JL   „  aAorded,  by  its  eventi, 

power  of  En'glLdTaid  ouTh'avfng  bTe^  Z? 'Zttf'  7'""^ 
assistance,  and  after  she  had  made^uch  an  eC^*'^;*  ?^''''^ 
on  equal  terms,  will  raise  our  character  and  Vnn-l    °*'*^">.P««*^« 

on  our  o„„  ^'/HS^^l^tr  ^S^^^^^^^ 

you  will  find  two,    hougrneXr  i«a^n^^  to  precedent. 

article  of  the  treafv  of  UtrpX       ?  l^^^'"  P°'"^'  ^'^-  ^^"^ 

article  of  our  treatv  wkh  S  '  v**  *^  '""""  P"^*  °^  "'^ 

no  alternative  betwVerbreak^n^  offTh  ^°"^°'^'  that  there  was 
the  article  ;  and  thaf^e  ac'e  °  J^^  "  negotiations,  and  accepting 
ject  to  you^approbatiL  oTrtSon'  °"'^  "  P''^"^'''"^''  -<^  «"b- 

terlitj^rfcnt  IT^^^^  ^^«  ^^--^  restoration  of 

have  obtained  an  afteraSnirt  'a  '^  P°««'»>>«  that  we  might 
to  it.  The  BriS"nlvernm;;t  Tn''' "«^^^^^  ^"^  our  opposition 
of  peace  :  a  wfbTe'roTnt  t'^^^^^^^  ^  ^«  f^^'"" 

success  in  the  Gulf  of  MeirJrn  Ir.  ?l  '  ■■  ""^P*""*  «^  sou?« 

duce  a  change  in    he  r  dlnn!'.  I  "^^^^  '"*^'^^"*»  "^ight  pro- 

question  had^  been  referred  he"^'"  1^7  ^'f'  t^^'^^y^  ^"^^  the 
consent  to  a  .elin^^Tn?  ^f  "^i^'ZJt^^  ^  ^ 

1 


aardoui  to  risk  the  peac«  on  the  qoestion  of  the  temporary  possei. 
flioa  of  that  amall  islapd,  since  the  question  of  tiUe  was  Yullv  re- 
served ;  and  it  was,  therefore,  no  cewion  of  territory. 
-     On  the  subject  of  the  Bsheries.  within  the  jurisdiction  of  Great 
Britain,  we  have  certainly  done  all  that  could  be  done.     If,  accord- 
ing to  the  construction  of  the  treaty  of  1783,  which  we  assumed 
the  right  *w  not  abrogated  by  the  war,  it  remains  entire,  since  we 
most  exphcitly  refused  to  renounce  it,  either  directly  or  indirectly. 
In  that  case,  It  IS  onlv  an  unsettled  subject  of  difference  between 
the  two  countries.   If  the  right  must  be  considered  as  abroirated  bv 
the  war,  we  cannot  regain  it  without  an  equivalent.    We  had  none 
to  give  but  the  recognition  of  their  right  to  navigate  the  Mississippi, 
and  we  offered  it.    On  this  last  supposition,  this  right  is  also  lost 
to  them  ;  and,  in  a  general  point  of  view,  we  have  certainly  lost 
nothing.    But  we  have  done  all  that  was  practicable  in  support  of 
the  right  to  those  fisheries-lst,  by  the  ground  we  assumed,  re- 
specting the  construction  of  the  treaty  of  1783— 3d,  by  the  offer  to 
recognise  the  British  right  to  the  navigation  of  the  Mississippi— 
MIy,  by  refusing  to  accept  from  Great  Britain  both  her  implied  re- 
nunciation of  the  right  of  that  navigation,  and  the  convenient  bounds 
ary  of  49  degrees,  for  the  whole  extent  of  our  and  her  territories, 
west  of  the  Lake  of  the  Woods,  rather  than  to  make  an  implied 
KSe°'  °°  °"'^**'^*'  *°  ^^^  "8^*  °^  America  to  those  particu- 

n niil'^"^''^  *^"*  ^r«at  Britain  is  very  desirous  of  obtaining  the 
northern  part  of  Maine,  say  from  about  47  degrees  north  latitude. 
to  the  northern  extremity  of  that  district,  as  claimed  by  us.    Thev 

ihFV^    r  «/r'''  ^^^i^^^eraptie*  into  the  Bay  des  Chaleurs,  ij 
the  Unit  of  St.  Lawrence,  has  its  source  so  far  west  as  to  intervene 
between  the  head  waters  of  the  river  St.  John's,  and  those  of  the 
streams  emptying  into  the  river  St.  Lawrence  ;  so  that  the  line  north 
from  the  source  of  the  river  St.  Croix  will  first  strike  the  heights 
of  land  which  divide  the  waters  emptying  into  the  AtlanUc  Ocean 
(river  bt.  John  s)  from  those  emptying  into  the  Gulf  of  St.  Law- 
rence, (river  des  Chaleurs,)  and  afterwards  the  heights  of  land 
which  divide  the  waters  emptying  into  the  Gulf  of  StfLawrence, 
(river  des  Chaleurs,)  from  those  emptying  into  the  river  St.  Law- 
rence  ;  but,  that  the  said  line  never  can,  in  the  words  of  the  treatv.. 
strike  any  spot  of  land  actually  dividing  the  waters  emptying  into 
the  AtlanUc  ocean,  from  those  which  fa-ll  into  the  riz-er  St.  Law- 
iTSf;        ?u  ^?  the  foundation  of  their  disputing  our  claim 

IhcXrof  P  ""^  "  'A^'f  '^'*  **l*y  ^'^  ^^  '^•^P^^^d  to  offer  the 
whole  of  Passamu^uddy  bay,  and  the  disputed  fisheries  as  an 
equivalent  for  the  portion  of  northern  territory,  which  thev  want 
w  order  to  connect  ilew-Brunswick  and  Quebec.  This  may  ac- 
count for  their  tenacity  with  respect  to  the  temporary  possession 
ot  Moose  Island,  and  for  their  refusing  to  accept  the  recognition  of 
their  right  to  the  navigation  of  the  Mississippi,  provided  they  ,e 
cognise  ours  to  the  fisheries.  ^  ' 


curriDg  to  her  charters/         ^        '^  ^°"'^"*"  y^»"««*  of,  by  re- 
I  have  the  honour  to  be,  with  respect,  &c. 

The  Hon.  the  Secretary  of  Stat.i  ALBERT  GALLATINJ  . 

of  the  United  States,  Washington. 


APRIL  18,  1822. 

Mr.  Floyd  submitted  the  following  resolution,  viz  • 

Resolved,  That  the  President  of  the  United  fit«t«.  k 
be  communicated  to  this  House,  if  not  inTurTous  S  th-  '!?"'""'  *°  ""»*  *• 
or  communication  which  may  have  bieTrlSed  iroJf\^'^^A''''y  ^•^"" 
JWre,  one  ol  the  Ministers  of  the  United  Stat«  l/  Jonathan  Russell,  Es- 
Ghent  after  the  signature  of  that  Catv  and  wh"^  ""''"'^'^  *^«  treaty  of 
«y  to  the  indications  contained  in  sa  d  Mini  ?«1  '»  ""*!  *""" '"  <=°nform. 
December,  1814.  '"  '*""  Minister's  letter,  dated  at  Ghent,  26Ui 

•  The  said  resolution  was  read  and  ordered  to  ,i.  on  «..  table  one  day. 

APRn  19,  1822. 
j  lie  resolution  submitted  by  Mr  FtnvA    «„       .     , 
«ad  agreed  to  by  the  House.  ^  '  **"  ^"^"day,  was  taken  up,  read^ 


fton  0/  19<A  ^pril  1822.     ^'  '     *  ''"'""''  '<»  '*"''  ^"o/w- 

To  the  House  of  Representatives  of  the  United  State,  • 

oftNT9f^:r4t%7^Sir/t'he^ 

eommunicated  to  the  kouse  ?f  ^n.  -^  President  "to  cause  to  be 
any  letter  which  «%  Cve  beeS lecS"? ''  '^'  ^"'''^  '"»«r««t 
one  of  the  Ministers  wirconcTuV/fK  I     f''°"  Jonathan  Russell 

ity  with  the  indicationstnTab  "din  i^^ 

1814,"  I  have  to  8tat«»  ih^t  u    •         ,"®' o* ''^^t'^  of  December 

Secreury  of  Su.e  t/?,'  VpelriLt!™'  ""  r"'""""  '»  ^« 
•ucb  document  had  been  deSdfit^^''"''  -  ^  '''"•  """  "" 
partmenl,  I  eiamined  and  fS     amonsthe  archives  of  (he  De- 

of  'ha' -escripdoT^rTed  rji^r^rr'^"  'r ''  "  '^''" 

fatt^Kntet^trpSHv-^^^^^^^ 


60 

delirered  there  "  a  paper  purporting  to  be  the  duplicate  of  a  letter 
written  bj^  him  from  Paris,  on  the  11th  of  February,  1816,  to  the 
then  Secretary  of  State,  to  be  communicated  to  the  House  as  the 
letter  called  for  by  the  resolution."  ' 

On  the  perusal  of  the  document  called  for,  I  find  that  it  commu- 
nicates a  difference  of  opinion  between  Mr.  Russell  and  a  majoritv 
of  his  colleagues,  m  certain  transactions  which  occurred  in  the  ne- 
gotiations at  Ghent,  touching  interests  which  have  been  since  satis- 
factorily adjusted  by  treaty  between  the  United  States  and  Great 
Britain.     The  view  which  Mr.  Russell  presents  of  his  own  con- 
duct, and  that  of  his  colleagues,  in  those  transactions,  will    it  is 
presumed,  call  from  the  two  surviving  members  of  that  mission 
who  differed  from  him,  a  reply,  containing  their  view  of  those 
transactions,  and  of  the  conduct  of  the  parties  in  them,  and  who 
should  his  letter  be  communicated  to  the  House  of  Representatives' 
will  also  claim  that  their  reply  should  be  communicated  in  like  man- 
ner by  the  Executive— a  claim  which,  on  the  principle  of  equal 
justice,  could  not  be  resisted.     The  Secretary  of  State,  one  of  the 
Ministers  referred  to,  has  already  expressed  a  desire  that  Mr.  Rus- 
sell's letter  should  be  communicated,  and  that  1  would  transmit,  at 
the  same  time,  a  communication  from  him  respecting  it. 

On  full  consideration  of  the  subject,  I  have  thought  it  would  be 
improper  for  the  Executive  to  communicate  the  letter  called  for 
unless  the  House,  on  a  knowledge  of  these  circumstances    should 
desire  it ;  in  which  case  the  document  called  for  shall  be  commu- 
nicated, accompanied  by  a  report  from  the  Secretary  of  State    as 
above  suggested.    1  have  directed  a  copy  to  be  delivered  to  Mr 
Russell,  to  be  disposed  of  as  he  may  think  proper,  and  have  caused 
the  original  to  be  deposited  in  the  Department  of  State,  with  in- 
struction to  deliver  a  copy  to  any  person  who  m  ,y  be  interested 
tv  u-         ^r       .   .a.  JAMES  MONROE.* 

Washington,  May  4tb,  1822,  ' 


Department  of  State, 

Washington,  May  3,  1822. 

The  Secretary  of  State,  to  whom  was  referred  the  resolution  of 
the  House  of  Representatives  of  the  19th  ultimo,  requesting  the 
President  "  to  cause  to  be  communicated  to  the  House,  if  not  inju- 
rious to  the  public  good,  any  letter  or  communication  which  may 
have  been  received  from  Jonathan  Russell,  Esquire,  one  of  the 
Ministers  of  the  United  States  who  concluded  the  treaty  of  Ghent 
after  the  signature  of  that  treaty,  and  which  was  written  in  con- 
formity to  the  indications  contained  in  said  Minister's  letter,  dated 
at  Ghent,  26th  of  December,  1814,"  has  the  honour  of  reporting 
to  the  President,  that,  until  after  the  adoption  of  the  said  resolution 
by  the  House,  there  was  upon  the  files  of  the  Department  of  State 
no  letter  from  Mr.  Russell,  of  the  description  mentioned  thereia  • 


t  it  comma- 
a  majority 
I  in  the  ne- 
since  aatia- 
HDd  Great 
s  own  con- 
wili,  it  is 
it  mission, 
V  of  those 
,  and  who, 
sentatives, 
I  like  mau- 
e  of  equal 
ane  of  the 
;  Mr.  Rus- 
ansmit,  at 


kui  lb«t  Mr.  Rnnell  himaeir  b»  .;.,.  ^  .■ 

rnent,.  communication  parportLrL,t,"'y*|.»'  *«  Depot- 

Extract  from  the  Journal  of  the  House  of  n. 

nicate  to  this  House  the  le.te,  „/   '''  ^"'""^  States  ba  requested  .„ 
message  of  the  4th  of  vr,i  !  '^'"'a'l'an  Russell.  esauir«  !  /      ?  ""mu- 

and  ordered  to  li,  on  the  table  o'Sda;. """'""""'  ^«°«»^t  "^  the  House,  re.d, 
TimW  .  MAT  7th,  1822. 

,,,.  CWGRESSIONAl 

friend,  who  attended  to  what  na..« J  i.      i^"  **"•  •»»  Mi.  Fuller's  m«.-  * 

following  sketch  of  the  pr^ceedK  th'at  ^""•'""^  "«'  ^om  ™  "o.^;  S  .h^ 
to  be  substantially  correct.]         ^  °"  *""  °'=«=''««n.   It  is  brief,  but^  SltreJ 

Mr.  FuIIer^rTorudoTr'r"^"^''^**^^'  »«2^. 

ing  the  PresidVnTJotmi^LThr^^^^^  -quest, 

esq.  relating  to  the  treaty  of  Ghent  iJT'  °^-  ^"'''^•an  ^usse 
.Tfh'"'  ?,^d  been  received  fSRt!' ^Z''^.^"^'*  ^°»«u« - 
either  of  them,  in  explanation  of  Xl^t^n    ?t"'P°*«"t'aries,  or 

%?  Fr.*''"  Tl'^''  °^'ts  adoXll"''  "^  ^'-  ^'  ^as  called 
GhS  rX^i  cV"^^^^^^^^^^^  resolution  for  th. 

before  the  House  proposing  an  esShlL       ^*.  "^«''  and  the  bi» 
«ident,  however,  had  not  thoughrpront^^^^  '^^'^:    ^«  ^he  Pr^^ 

in  question,  when  specially  cfllelfor  he  .Mr»^"?  '-'*-^'  "'^  ^'""^ 

S        '^^"VO  had  moved  to 


hiiv«  the  m««iiAg«  committed  to  •  eommitt#t  of  which  he  nu  « 
m«mbtr,  but  th«  motion  h»(l  not  prcvNil^d  M«  hnd,  howavtr, 
hop«(!,  ninc«  h«  hitil  <(Miilf«()  fVom  nK«in  r(>(]UMtin||  the  letter,  thMt 
no, other  gontlemnn  would  heve  Mro|ioMeii  it.  it  wm  menifett  thel 
it  hm)  been  withbcM  to  prevent  tne  etcitement  ami  ill  bluotl  which 
the  content!  mip^t  produce.  He  hoped  the  reiutution  would  not 
be  Adopted. 

Mr.  Fuller  oMid,  he  wnn  hnpny  to  hear  fVom  the  Kenllemnn  fVom 
Vir|inin.  thnt  he  hud  been  induced  to  nltntHin  from  h  I'urther,  cell 
fbr  Mr.  k'l  letter  to  orevent  the  PKcitement  of"  ill  blood/*  end  ho 
would  by  no  meMnii  be  behind  him,  (Mr.  I'lo^d,^  in  nuch  «  liiud- 
iible  intent ;  l)ut,  in  bin  opinion,  the  communicntion  of  the  letter, 
dod  of  the  explnnntion  of  the  other  comminwiunrre,  to  Congrew 
end  to  the  uublic,  would  hnve  n  far  Kfenter  tendencjr  to  rIInj^  the 
ill  blood,  if  eny  etiited,  thiin  the  auppreifiion  of  the  txplanatinn, 
while  the  letter  wm  in  effect  nrnde  public.  The  PreKident^n  met- 
nege  informed  ui,  Mr.  Fuller  oeid,  thnt  he  hnd  tmnimilttui  the  letter 
to  the  l)ep«rtment  of  State,  and  directed  copioi  of  it  to  be  delivered 
to  peraonn  who  nbouKI  apply  ;  conwiMpinitly,  it  woubi  loon  reach 
the  new«p«per«,  while  the  commentR  or  explanationii  which  outbt 
to  accompany  it  would  bo  dVectually  f«nppre*«ed.  Nothing,  in  hi» 
opinion,  could  be  more  unfair  than  thuw  to  Rtitle  all  reply.  It  re> 
minded  him,  he  »aid^  of  what  ho  had  of  late  frequently  witnessed 
in  this  lloune.  %vhen  »ome  bill  was  tionding,  and,  before  it  was  un- 
derstood, one  of  its  opposecs  would  make  a  speech  agniniit  it,  and 
conclude  with  a  motion  to  hy  it  en  tkr  tabh^  which  ^trecluded  nil 
debate,  aud,  consequently,  all  explanation.  The  indignation  pro 
duced  by  such  a  course  every  itentlcman  must  have  observed  and 
sometimes  have  felt.  There  was  notbiuK  so  safe  and  honourable 
as  a  full  disclosure  of  the  statements  of  both  sides.  He  reKretled. 
he  said,  that  bis  colleague,  the  writer  of  ibo  letter,  was  not  in  his 
seet,  M  he  was  sure  be  could  not  object  to  the  call,  more  especially 
as  it  appeared  from  the  moss!»gt>,  that  \\w  gentloninn  himself  had 
furniabed  to  the  Department  a  duplii  ate  or  copy  ol'  that  letter  tu 
he  communicated  to  CeORcess  before  the  original  biul  boon  found. 
As  to  the  suiasjiextion  that  tbo  Hbont  correspomlence  or  the  letter 
in  question  could  tbn>w  a  single  niy  ot  light  on  the  subject  v>f  the 
occupation  of  Columbia  river,  it  was*  too  iniprol»aMc,  M  r.  Fuller  said, 
to  have  ever  entered  bis  mind  ;  but  if  the  gtMitleman  from  Virginia 
(Mr.  Floyd)  had  expected  it  at  (ii-st,  ho  could  see  no  reason  for 
his  giving  over  the  pursuit.  He  hoped  the  House  would  see  the 
obvious  justice  of  Adopting  the  resolution. 

Mr.  Cocke  said,  be  coidd  see  no  reason  tor  calling  for  the  letter: 
the  **resident  had  declined  conuuunicating  it,  and,  tbcrcibre,  he 
thought  it  not  proper  in  the  House  to  persist  in  the  call. 

Mr.  Sergeant  said,  be  rojie  to  correct  the  error  into  which  the. 
gentlenfHin  from  Tennessee  (Mr.  Cocke)  i>ad  fallen,  in  snpj>osing 
the  President  had  "  declined*'  conunnnicating  Mr  UusseU's  letter. 
It  appeared,  on  recurring  to  the  mcssi^c,  (a  part  of  which  Mr.  if 


Ma.].)  tlint  h«  m«rely  diwlinc.l  mncilitK  th«  l«u«r.  withotit  nl.<> 

..onen.  «.  .„  n„g..ti«(.d  th«  Umiy,  or  h,,^  ortr,«m:.|,«ulU  ;«Z  . 

twon.c,  «  both  t«|Hh.ri«n.l  M,-.  H.Mi.l.  I.«  coulK.J^K 
tlon   wl,«t«v«r  to  Uh,  re.olutlu,,.  which  .eemeU.  uX   «K 
circum,  .,„«M.  to  ,mk  .,o  ,uor«  th»..  w...  .h.«  to  th«  .uiviveri  o'Z 
to  brKr"""'  '      "  ""'"'""*  *"'"  ""?'*«•'•"'•  «•"'  ♦*»'»  »'«d  « liih" 

!.«'!!.';■/ r'^\*''  ?'''"''  '.""*.•''"«  •''"  '"""""«•  ••«'"'•  »••"  »«'•»»•  t»f  which. 
tr/op;I;Jai«'r' ""'    *'"'■"  •"  I.«Hi.ul«Wy  Hitead«d  to.  wahdr.';; 

•  "^^  ' ;' ^V><«  '«••  the  .•.mah.tior..  ,m  i.  wouhl  .how  thu  w^.tirn  ue"! 
'  fh!.?  "•""<"'■  "'""'  ""*'•""««  ♦*ero  di.rogurd«d  or  iHciared  • 

liMinpi  to  upciire  tho  lUhoiieM  of  thu  »wn. 

the  ueglire"''''"  *"*'  "'*"*  '*''"*""'*  *"'"'  ""'^  °"^  ^^  **""  ^"''^*"  '» 


than  lin^rlt,   htl,  om  „/ thr  hn,mlnntuirin  oriZunird!£^^^ 

Tcitlie  iluuia  of  H«|irfiNeiilativoi: 
Incomphunco  with  the  re-ohition  of  the  House  of  HnproBenta- 

!lll  «n  V°„j:""'7»'*^«l« '"  t»'"l  Ho«»«  (ho  lettrr  of  Jon.thM.,  Ku«. 
ivl  ;  I2t  ^        "^  '"  '"  *""  ""'"'"«*•  °'"  "'«  -*«''  """""t,  together 

to  tW,m    n?'"!".'.'"""  l"""  ""  '.'*'  "'"^  '"'^^  •'«'^«*^«"'  'Htttive  there- 
to.lromHny  ot  th«  othor  mmigler*  of  the  United  Stales  who  ne- 

Ko^iHted  the  treaty  of  Ghent."  i  herewith  tr mit  a  report  from 

e  Secretary  ot  State,  with  the  docuuienU  callml  for  hy  that  re.i" 


DppnrtmentofSmto, 

rJ«Ulent'on?yrr    ;^?!f.  !"".""'  '^'^"""''  of  trunsmittioK  to  the 

«ife^    at    l^n    T       .""'  ^  ^''l'"  '^"'  '■^"""•''*''  "l>o»  the  paper  depo- 

Jon  thl    1    ;?'!?•''"'  '•^.^l!'*"  ""  '^'^  '-^^'l  "*'»»^'  '"onth,  by 

Statpl  n       r   • ''!  ^""•'  "    ^^^^  plenipotentiaries  ot  the  United 

lWofltn/'''^'''r''^"  "'  ^!''^'"''  '"  ''♦^  communicated  to  the 

■t  ofthJI  mrTl'r"'  ":  *'■"  |«^««'-«»"«^d  »"••  l>y  <heir  resolu. 

AUIv  reX«        n    T!l'""'^l '  ""^  '^"^  ^«' ••'^'"'•^  "'State  respect^ 

£e7e    «   ;.^^^^^^^^  the  President  wonhl  transmit  to  the  JlouJe  of 

on  m,  n  r  Ia^  »f;m««kH,  together  with  the  above  mentioned 

uy  the  House.  jouN  qUlNCY  ADAMS. 


u 


I'ttil*,  1 1  til  IVluHiiiy,  laiA,    V 
r.HMi«n,  ulurh  mdi.r^d  ,„„  to  .lUVor  fro,.,  «  ..mjoniy  ohJI    " 

ivul,  our  m,«onm„  to  provrit-  almolu.il 'inutility.     aSST. 
th  .  m,.ouiUK  .u.  nmv  M.,uil,.tion  u,,.  „r,y  more  hecr.aurv  o«  tl 

o»th«  »ov«r«.gnty  ««d  indrpoudoncc  oftl,«  lluUtuI  Stutus      * 

TliP  nrtiolc  pr»)po(ie«l  ..ppenroil  nUo  to  l.p  incunsiiitent  with  our 

M  m'^oI''!!";  ?  ^'^  '?"^''''""'  I  •^"  ""•  ^^'"'^»'  ''«»*'»''  "•  t"  "unW  (Ij  urn 
h„I  fi  7'"''  •"  ^'^  '"*""»«''*  ""«  .li-icus>io»  ;  for,  it  ooul,  ,  ot  bo 
bohovea  that  wr  wrro  Mi  Ken  to  ((»)  ..l,n.i«,e 'on  »  .uh^ct  'vhich 
nc  Horo  rr«trniuo,l  fron,  (7)  dl.ruMing,  ,uul  th«t  .u,    0)  IZS, 

r«^^on.     ^        '  •  completely  rofrainml  from  (he  interdicted  di^ 

V  «  m  iorifv  of  1   ""''  '"':°'"I»««'  '•«  .>\^th  the  principle,  iorled 
,L"  '"'''^'"'r  «f  «'">   nn-sion,  nnd  with  the  construction  which 

Tr  ?H  i  lei  In »  •     r"'"-   ."^  r  *^  '""f'^y  ^""^  '^"'•^'^t  in  thew 
Kv  v«;..   n r  *'"'  ^^o'^truo  .on,  .tt>ecatne  u,  to  «ct  accordingly ! . 

««cy  to  errSr  ^  ""'  '"""'  '""  ''  ^"'  »«»«<^«"«ry  to  «dd  inconlJt! 

I  freely  confow,  however,  that  I  did  not  accord  tvith  (he  inaiori- 

V.  either  m  heir  view  of  the  treaty  of  1783,  whence   hey  Sod 

be,r  principles,  or  of  our  instructions ;  ami  h«l  ^^Kreut  oSon 

to  prop.>„„g  the  article  did  not  arise  iVom  «n  unxfefy  to  rocoS 

our  conduct  with  our  i  asoning  and  declaration..       ^  "'  '* 


60 


*      loVfUtAT*..] 

Br-t'-h  right  lotbi„«vSon  of   uS^^  "f  '"''^.''"  ^onfirmlni  X 
h«  Amohcan  people  ,otke«,u^^j^^^^^  ""''  »^«  4l  c^' 

.*'l«  (•'')  proposal  of. iicli    .n    «.«!  I 

terJiclcJ.li,o„.,i„„."'"'"'  '^"'•"■"Pletcly  rowUd  fromlhe  in 

■neir  pnnciplej,  „„,  ofoor  iiuir  ,,, r         ''^'  "bencc  Ihiiv  d«r/K.,l 
^.on  0  ,,„p„„„,  ,h,  J°  e'S  i'-^j  »»V  «.<l  tha,  ,„,,  g™""^ 


66 


[PRIVATB.] 


I  could  not  believe  that  the  independence  of  the  United  States 
was  derived  from  the  treaty  of  1783  ;  that  the  recognition  of  that 
independence,  by  Great  Britain,  gave  to  this  treaty  any  peculiar 
character,  or  that  such  character,  supposing  it  existed,  would  ne> 
cesaariiy  render  this  treaty  absolutely  inseparable  in  its  provisions, 
and  make  it  one  entire  and  indivisible  whole,  equally  imperishable 
in  all  its  parts,  by  any  change  which  might  occur  in  the  relations 
between  the  contracting  parties. 

The  independence  of  the  United  States  rests  upon  those  funda* 
mental  principles  set  forth  and  acted  on  by  the  American  Congress, 
irji  the  declaration  of  July,  1776,  and  not  on  any  British  (12)  graat 
io  the  treaty  of  1783,  and  its  era  is  dated  accordingly. 

The  treaty  of  1783  was  merely  a  (13)  treaty  of  peace,  and  there- 
fore subject  to  the  same  rules  of  construction  as  all  other  compacts 
of  this  nature.  The  recognition  of  the  independence  of  the  United 
States  could  not  (14)  well  have  given  to  it  a  peculiar  character,  and 
excepted  it  from  the  operation  of  these  rules.  Such  a  recognition, 
expressed  or  implied,  is  always  indispensable  on  the  pari  of  every 
nation  with  whom  we  form  any  treaty  (15)  whatsoever.  France,  in 
the  treaty  of  alliance,  long  before  the  year  1783,  not  only  expressly 
recognised,  but  engaged  (16)  effectually  to  maintain,  this  independ^ 
ence  ;  and  yet  this  treaty,  so  far  from  being  considered  as  possess- 
ing any  mysterious  peculiarity,  by  which  its  existence  was  perpe- 
tuated, has,  even  without  war,  and  although  a  part  of  it  contained 
words  of  (17)  perpetuity,  and  was  (18j  unexecuted,  long  (19)  since  en- 
tirely terminated. 

Had  the  recognition  of  our  independence  by  Great  Britain  given 
to  the  treaty  of  1783  any  peculiar  character,  which  it  did  not,  (20) 
still  that  character  could  have  properly  extended  to  those,  provi- 
sions only  (21)  which  affected  that  independence.  All  those  general 
rights,  tor  instance,  of  jurisdiction,  which  appertained  to  the  Unit- 
ed States,  in  their  quality  as  a  nation,  might,  so  far  as  that  treaty 
was  declaratory  of  them,  have  been  embraced  by  (22)  such  pecu- 
liarity, without  (23)  necessarily  extending   its   influence  to    mere 

(24)  special  commercial  liberties  and   {%S)   privileges,  or    to    provisions 

(26)  long  since  executed,  not  indispensably  connected  with  national 
sovereignty,  (27)  or  necessarily  resulting  from  it 

The  liberty  to  take  and  cure  fish,  within  the  exclusive  (28)  juris- 
diction of  (29)  Great  Britain,  vvas  certainly  not  necessary  to  perfect 
the  (30)  jurisdiction  of  the  (31)  United  States;  and  there  is  no  reason 
to  believe  that  such  a  liberty  wa«  intended  to  be  raised  to  an  equa- 
lity with  the  general  right  of  fishing  within  the  common  jurisdic- 
tion of  all  nations,  which  accrued  to  us  as  a  member  of  the  great 
national  family.  On  the  contrary,  the  distinction  between  the  spe- 
cial liberty  and  the  general  right  appears  to  have  been  well  under- 
stood  by  the  American  ministers  who  negotiated  the  treaty  of  1783, 
and  to  have  been  clearly  marked  by  the  very  import  of  the  terms 
which  they  employed.  It  would  evidently  have  been  unwise  in 
them,  however  ingenious  it  may  be  in  us,  to  exalt  such  a  privilege 


[ovrucxTt.'] 


^7 


I  could  not  beliere  that  the  .odependenc*  of  th«  Unfted  State* 
was  derived  from  the  treaty  of  1V83  ;  that  the  recogn^tlSo  of  th!! 
mdependence,  by  Great  Britain,  gave  to  thia  trentl^nv  J  i 
character,  or  that  such  characte;,  supposing  teSlJirM'''*' 
ce..nly  render  this  treaty  absoIulelyTnsepfrl:'^:  U  'T^^^^^^^ 
and  make  it  one  entire  and  indivisible  whole  eouallv  imVll  J  t  u, ' 
jn  all  its  parts,  by  any  change  which  might  ;ccr  J  Ku'w 
between  the  contracting  parties.  relation* 

The  independence  of  the  United  States  rests  nnon  fl.Ao«  f    j 
«ental  principles  set  forth  and  acted  on  by  t^e  ISan  Co„Z**" 
.n  the  dechnrtion  of  July,  1776,  and  notU  any  S  (?K 
.n  «ie  treaty  of  1 783  ;  and  its  jera  is  dated  accordingly     ^      *^ 
r«  J     K•''^^7  •*[  "^^  ""^^  '"^'■^'y  «  C^)  treatifofpeaci  and  there- 
fore subject  to  «ie  same  rules  of  construction  aa  all  othercomS 
o  th.a  nature.  The  recognition  of  the  independence  of  he     S 
States  could  not  (14)  have  well  given  to  it  a  peculiar  character  and 
excepted  ,t  from  the  operation  of  these  rules.     Such  a  rXni«^^^^^ 
expressed  or  .mplied,  is  always  indispensable  on  the  part  Xve'v 
nation  with  whom  we  form  any  treaty  (15)  ^hatcver.*^  France    iJ 
the  treaty  of  alhance.  long  before  the  year  1783.  not  on.    e"prU" 
ly  recognised,  but  engaged  (i6)  effecluaUy  lo  maintain  this  inde^n 
dence;  and  yet  this  treaty,  so  far  from  being  considered  as  ooss^s^ 
ing  any  mysterious  peculiarity  by  which  ite  existence  wa/peril: 
tuated,  has   even  without  war,  and  although  a  part  of  it  ronf«.S 
words  of  (17)  perpetuin,  and  was  (18)  unese^te,  Lg  (19)  .2^^ 

Had  Ihe  recognition  of  our  independence  by  Great  Britain  friv^r, 
Sof  ^  h'fV^  'J''  any  peculii  characte?,  whfch    fdK 
(20)  yet  that  Character  could  have  properly  extended  to  those  pro 
visions  only  (2  )  u,kirh  affecud  that  independence.     All  thosel^„^' 
ral  rights,  for  instance,  of  jurisdiction   which  apperta  ned  tf  Sfj 
United  States  in  their  quality  as  a  nation,  might,  soTr  ^' that  re^v 
was  declaratory  of  them,  have  been  embraced  by  (22)  that  pe47 
arity  without  (23)  nec«,m/y  extending  its  influence  io  m^vrm 
special  Wer/,«  and   {^o)  privilege,,  or  to  provisions   (i^)lmsZcfl 
Tiltl  "''*   '»'J'«P«"««b ly  connected   with   national   sovfrZX 
(27)  nor  necessarily  resulting  from  it.  "^^eigniy, 

Ser  V  »';:!l^;h  ^"  '^^'^''^'y'  the  distinction  between  the  specia 

t„.A    M    ^"l^  ««"*''•■''  right,  appears  to  Save  beenwelunde" 

stood  by  the  American  ministers  who  negotiated  thrtre^v  ofnaT 


to  the  rank  of  a  sovereign  right,  and  thereby  to  have  assume,)  tu^ 

ty  to  be  an  indispensable  condition  of  our  national  e»i«fpJo      a 
thus  rendering  that  existence  as  precarious  tt?e.Sertv1;s'.^ 
They  could  not  have  considered  a  privileee  whJrh  fhJl    ^        . 
made  to  depend,  to  a  very  considerkb  reltPnr  f..  f  ^  expressly 
Won  eveSs  and  private^nterestri  parta^^^^^^^^ 
and  entitled  to  the  duration  of  the  inh«ppn7  n,      t-   '^''f  «cter 
reignty     The  settlement  of  the  shor  s  S    KnTtTj/  T'^ 
been  effected  by  the  nolicv  of  thp  Rriti«h^    '         ^  *""®'  ***^« 
have  made  the  LentKiti  h  s„bjec  f  Sndrr*^  '^'  ''°"" 
that  policy,  necessary  to  the  continuance  of  a  Lrv    '"^Jr^^l?* 
portion  of  that  (33)  iibe,.y.     Thev  could  Lf\     ^  considerable 
place,  within  the^  control  of  a  foreign  (S)  got^t'"'^  f*""' i** 

from  the  operation  of  those  events  on  which  the^si?  .  '*'  ^'^ 
or  termination  of  such  treaties  depends  Vas  in  iLr  """" 
compelled  tc  believe,  if  any  such  peculiarity  bebneed  ToT'' 
provisions,  m  that  treaty,  which  had  an  immediate  conniionw^S 
our  independence,  that  it  did  not  necessarily  affLf /L  ?  ^'*^ 
the  whole  treaty,  (37)  or  attdch  to  a  SeKe^wh?^^^^  ""*"'"^"* 
gy  to  such  provisio^ns  orany  rdation^toSnL^^^^^^^^^^ 

I  know  riot,  indeed,  any  treats,  or  any  article  of  «Trpof '  i.  * 
ever  may  have  been  the  subject  to  which  kretted  orT"^'  '"''**' 
which  t  was  expressed,  that  has  survived  a  wa  between  h^  "* 
ties,  without  being  specially  renewed,  by  reference  ^rredtafTn' 
^ISt^  r"^*K'^^'^P"''^^^-  '  cannot,  indeed,  (^)  co„ce?v  "  hie 
po  sibihtyofsuch  a  treaty  or  such  an  article  ;  fori  how^vTr  dear 
and  strong  the  stipulations  for  perpetuity  might  bL  th^L  stinulf 
tions  themselves  would  follow  the  fate  oLrdi^nary  unexec„  ed "n 
fKrlrr'lvS^^'  ^"^^^'^^^^  ''^  declaredLento^rprr-- 

rest  exclus  vely  on  its  peculiar  character  our  tiSe  to  a^v  o7thP 
rights  mentioned  in  it,  and  much  less  our  title  to  the  fi«,hL  rloNr*, 
m  question.    If  hostihties  could  not  affecUhat  trLt^    4^^^^^^^^^ 
gate  Its  provisions,  why  did  we  permit  the  boundar  e^  asslned  bv 
It  to  be  brought  into  discission,  or  stipulate  for  a  (4l)res2o„ IfaS 

StTecur^S  tT'  '"'"^  '^'  Present  war?  If  iuch  (42;^,!:" 
was  secured  by  the  mere  operation  of  the  treaty  of  1783,  why  did 
we  discover  any  solicitude  for  the  statv.  ante  bellum,  and  kot  7esi  t 
the  principle  of  uh  possidetis  on  that  ground  ?  '     "  ""^  ™sisc 


ioVtUCATE.] 


69 


erty  to  be  an  indispensable  condiUon  rour  2-  1""^ '"'^  *  *^''- 
thus  rendering  that  existence  as  prewriL  n^*!!^  ^f'.!''"*^^' «°d 
They   could  not  have    considered  »nl?i  **  *^«  ^'^^^  't««If. 

presslyrnade  to  depend,  Ta  very  eoL^^^^^^         T**'*^  '^^y  *"' 

tinuance,  (32)  o„  miie  ev;at.  and/rivate  tnSrl»t!*^''^  ^''  '*»  ^^n- 

he  character,  and  entitled  to  theduM^^^^^  pat  taking  of 

ties  of  aovere  gnty.     The  settl Jml«*  !/ *L      .  *  'nhereot  proper- 

time,  have  beef  ekt^  V^hl^ojt^ft  1?'?' u^'**"*'  "^^J 
and  would  have  made  ihe  LetofiZ^i  l-^"!^^  a^^^ernment. 
ence  of  that  policy,  necessarv  to  Ik-  ^•'"'^J'*'^^  "°'*«»'  the  infla- 
derable  portfon  o?C  S  Slge  '^  ?Jl7,r,5  ^^ ?  je.y  co°n.^ 
thus  to  place  within  tie  control  of  a  ?L?  z^*  ^«^e 'n^int 
subjects,  an  (35)  integral  part,  as  we  noUf  f  P  (^  P***"  "d  it. 
vilege,  of  our  national  rights  "^*'^*  ^°  *^*"'«<^er  thiaprf. 

It  IS  from  this  view  of  the  subipr-t  tu„,  i  i. 
to  beheye  that  there  was  nShingTn  1  tre«,^^r'.Sr  <^°°^t«ined 
essentially  distinguish  it  fromllVnnrvtyj^  ^  ^^^^^ 
account  of  any  peculiarity  of  character  frlm.h?'-  "^  ^^^^  **'  <»» 
the  operation  of  those  events  on  which  tT/^V"'*''  *'"*'  °'fro« 
mination  of  such  treaties  depends  *  ^^  cominuanc,  or  ter- 

*  was,  in  like  manner,  coraoejipd  tn  h-i-         •/• 
arity  belonged  to  those  provTsio"  sin  that  r'/  '^'!!?  f"'^'^  ?«<="«- 
mediate  connection  with  our  indrDendpnL  tu^^''^?'*'''  **«**  «°  •«- 
riJy  aflect  the  nature  of  the  whole  trea^?37?'*  ''f''^  ''°*  °«<^«««a. 

e.e{r;E::;^Ki;:'q-f--ny^ 

,   in  which  It  was  expressed,  hat  Ls'vlL'*^*'' ^  **>«  terms 
parties,  without  being  spec  ally  reJlw^Jh      ^''^''  '^^^^^^n  the 
in  the  succeedingtreaty  of  peace    I  .1   '.^  reference  or  recital 
possibility  of  suet  a  ireJ/^7VsTlTn'^^^^^^^ 
clear  and  strong  the  stipi  ations  for  1      T^"^^  '  ^*""'  »'«'^ever 

stipulations  themselves  wSawthrff*";*^."''^''^  ^^>  these 
ed  engagements,  and  require,  aS  a  wlrtSl^;*^'?'"'^  ""««<=«*. 
the  parties  for  their  revival.  '  *°*  declared  assent  of 

^on2:ZTiP\[Ttr^^^^^^^^  confidence  in  our 

exclusively  on  its  peculiar  character  our ^.r.*"^^"  ''^^'^S  to  rest 

mentioned  in  it ;  and  much  less  our  it^e  to  hV«  T-^  ^fi''*  "«»•*- 
m  question.  '^  ""®  to  the  fishing  (39)  priviLg, 

Ifhostilities  could  not  affect  that  treaty  /'40^„       u 
vision*,  why  did  we  uermiMho  1     T'A^  ""' abrogate  its  pro- 

brcught  int'discus^on'^orTt  puttera  /in'  ^^'«"«*'  ^^  '*'  ^^  b« 
taken  from  us  during  the  prt'enf^ir  /l  s  ^^^^^^^^^^  ^?"  ^''''^ 
secured  by  the  mere  operation  of  the  trLtv  o/J^fl/"?*':".''"* 
discover  any  solicitude /b»the  statu]  IZUi  ^?'  *^''^  *^"*  "^^ 
principle  o/«rt>a„,Ve/,>  on  that  ground   *'"""•'  ""'^  "°^  *•«•'•»  the 

0 


70 


[raiVATE.f 


With  regard  it  the  fishing  privilege,  we  distinctly  stated  to  you, 
in  our  letter  of  the  (43)  2l8t  of  December,  that,  (44)  «♦  at  the  time  of 
the  treaty  of  1783,  it  was  (45)  no  new  grant,  we  having  always  before 
that  time  enjoyed  it,"  and  thus  endeavoured  to  derive  our  title  to 
it  from  (46)  prescription.  A  title,  derived  from  immemorial  usage, 
antecedent  to  1783,  could  not  well  owe  its  origin  or  its  validity 
(47)  to  a  cofiipact  concluded  at  that  time,  and  we  (48)  could,  therefore, 
in  this  view  of  the  s^ibject,  correctly  say  that  this  privilege  (49)  was  «o 
new  grant ;  that  is,  that  our  right  to  the  exercise  of  it  was  totally 
independent  of  such  compact.  If  we  were  well-founded,  however, 
in  the  assertion  of  our  prescriptive  title,  it  was  quite  (50)  unnece^- 
sarj  to  attempt  to  give  a  kind  of  charmed  existence  to  the  treaty  of 
1783,  and  to  extend  its  (si)  undefinable  infiuence  to  every  article  of 
which  it  was  composed,  merely  io  preserve  that  title  which  we 
declared  to  be  in  no  way  derived  from  it,  and  which  had  existed, 
and,  of  course,  could  exist,  without  it, 

it  was'  rather  unfortunate,  too,  for  our  argument  against  a  seve- 
rance of  the  provisions  of  that  treaty,  that  we  should  have  disco- 
vered, ourselves,  (52)  a  radical  difference  between  them,  making  the 
fishing  (53)  privilege  depend  on  immemorial  usage,  and,  of  course,  dis- 
tinct in  its  nature  (54)  and  origin,  from  the  rights  resulting  from  our 
independence. 

We,indeed*  throw  pome  obscurity  over  this  subject  when  we  de- 
clare to  you  that  this  privilege  was  always  enjoyed  by  us  before  the 
treaty  of  1783,  *,'aence  inferring  that  it  was  not  granted  by  that  trea- 
ty, and  in  the  same  sentence  and  from  the  same  fact,  appear  also  to 
infer,  that  it  was  not  to  be  forfeited  by  war  .any  more  than  (55)  any' 
other  of  the  rights  of  our  independence,  making  it  thus  one  of  (56)  these 
rights,  and  of  course,  according  to  our  doctrine,  dependant  on  that 
treaty. 

There  might  have  been  nothing  incomprehensible  in  this  mode 
of  reasoning,  had  the  treaty  recognised  this  privilege  to  be  derived 
from  prescription,  and  confirmed  it  on  that  ground.  The  treaty 
has,  however,  not  the  slightest  allusion  to  the  past,  in  reference  to 
this  privilege,  but  regards  it  only  with  a  view  to  the  future.  The 
treaty,  (67 1  therefore,  cannot  be  construed  as  supporting  a  pre-exist- 
ing title,  but  as  containing  a  grant  entirely  new.  If  we  claim,  there^ 
fore,  under  the  treaty,  we  must  renounce  prescription,  and  if  we 
claim  from  prescription,  we  can  derive  no  aid  from  the  treaty.  If 
the  treaty  be  imperishable  in  all  its  parts,  the  fishing  privilege  re- 
mains unimpaired  without  a  recurrence  to  immemorial  usage  ;  and 
if  our  title  to  it  be  well-founded  on  immemorial  usage,  the  treaty 
may  perish  without  affecting  it.  To  have  endeavoured  to  support 
it  on  both  grounds,  implies  that  we  had  not  entire  confidence  in 
either,  and  to  have  proposed  a  new  article,  indicates  a  distrust  of 
both. 

It  is  not,  as  I  conceive,  difficult  to  show  that  we  (58)  cannot,  in- 
deed, derive  (59)  «  better  title  to  this  fishing  privilege,  from  pre  - 
5cription,4han  from  any  indestructible  (jutlity  of  the  treaty  of  1783. 


[©tTFLrCATE-] 

With  regard  to  the  fishing  ] 


7J 


m  our  ietter  of  the  (43)  25tf  o^f  DecS  7,t,^"*'J«"j  «  *?  JOI, 

the  treaty  of  1783,  it  was  (45)  noneu,grar^''ru    ^    ^  V  ""*  *''"*^  ^^ 

that  time  enjoyed  it,  and  thus  endeavoured  Lh^'"^  *''^"^  '**^°'« 

from  (46)  prescHpiion;  a  title  derived  from  1^J*^•'^^°"''  *'"^  *** '' 

cedent  to  ^783,  could  not  well  owe  iuZ,lTTr''\^!.'^'  «"*«■ 

any  coH,pact,  concluded  at  that  time  ;  andl"' ?i  ^S**!*/'  ^V  *' 

in  this  view  of  the  subject,  correctly  savtr»f  i-^     *  '  therefore, 

,        Jhen  no  new  grant ;  that  is/that  oSrStoi      P""  "«"  (**^  "" 

totally  independent  of  such  compact     If       ^  *''^'*^"^  "*'•*  '^ 

Wever,  in  the  assertion  of  ouC'escrind!  "".^fi^  '^*"  ^°""^««»' 
(50)  unnecessary  for  U8  to  a»o«,r.**-?P*'^®  *'*'e.  »t  was  quite 
to  the  treaty  of  17J3  ^IdTexteTd'it:  ^t?? .^^^ ^^'^^^^d  existS 

n^akingthe  fishing  (5^) '^Jlll^/.o^^      f^^^^^^^  them. 

and  of  course,  distinct,  in  it? nature  (SiT.ni    '°""«™o"al  usage, 

rights  resulting  from  our  independence  '"  '"  '"''"'  ^^°™  *he 

We  indeed  throw  some  obscurity  over  this  snhi...  ^ 
Clare  to  you  that  this  privilege  was  a^tVvJ  1  •  "^  >  "^^^^  ^e  de- 
the  treaty  of  1783 ;  thence  inferZ  thrt  i^U?°^f^  ^>^  "«  before 
treaty,  and,  in  the  same  sentence  and  frl.^  "  ^"""^^^  ^^  **>»' 
also  to  infer  that  it  was  not  to  h!^!?  l  Tu*^®  ^^'"^  ^^ct,  abpear 
CSS)  any  other  »/ /A.^S/-?.X^i^^r/'^ t^  ^'T' ^"3^  -"oreTha^ 
»ho,e  rights,  and.  of  course.  aSdlnT/o'n     5  "^  '^  ^^"»  °°e  of  f^) 

hat  treaty.  There  might  have  beenlt  J  ''"""'  '^^^^"dant  on 
this  mode  of  reasoning,  had  the  tr.!?  "^'''"'S  .«»'=o™Prehen8ibh  in 
be  derived  from  preSriotinn       a   ^  ''f  ogn'sed  this  privilege  o 

The  treaty,  how^evrrZtou'hlluStra^^  °°  *'«*  «--i 
reference  to  this  privilege,  but  re/ardJ  k  In  "°"u*^  ^^^  P««*'  '"« 
ialure.  The  treaty  (57jc;„„o  ,  ehSre  Ip  J^  ""/"^  ?  "'^"^  ">  ^^e 
inga  pre-existing  title,  bit  as  cinta  ntl'  *'°"«*^"«d  as  support- 
we  claim,  therefore,  under  he  treSv  w^.' ^T'  ""^'''^'^  "*^^-  Jf 
tion  ;  and  if  we  claim  from  prescrtptfon  t^"'*  ''!"°""^«  P'-e^crip. 
the  treaty.  If  the  treaty  be  S  hablTin 'JJi'^f"'*  °**  ^'^  ^^^^^ 
«ng  privilege  remains  uniipaire*?  Sout  «  r^  '*"  P^''^^'^'^^  ^'h" 
monal  usage  ;  and  if  our  title  to  it  be  weHfonnn'"""*^*  *°  '«"»«- 

voured  to  support  it  on  both  grounds  it.^r  fu  ^**  ^'^ve  endea- 
confidence  in*  'either,  and  to  have  pr^Sra  n'*  ^"  ^«''  "°^  «»^'^« 
a  distrust  of  both.  proposed  a  new  article  indicates 

(Jeriv^  ("?; :: blr;S'to'tt"fi  H-  ^'"^  *^«^  -«  ^^«)  «-.  -deed 


7fi 


[^RfVATR.] 


?!*■!" "^Ji.^  ^    ^  '"**'"  "  "•  *°  "•  inapplicable  to  the  (61)  partle. 
trid  to  the  (62)  «ubj.ct,  and  to  be  defective  both  in  (68)  fact  and  effect. 

^fK:?n  1*1"     •!rJ*'*  •"""•"""•iai  enjoyment  of  a  privilege 

RiwaK?        •  •*"""**M*'°"'  ^y  ^^*^'^  "'»'j«<^t«'  tfa*  inhabitants  of 
British  colonies,  could  not  well  be  considered  as  evidence  of  a  title 

to  that  pmUege  claimed  (M)byth.cit«en.  of  an  independent  repub- 
^iT  ;X''}t   ?  "^?««'»»'^e  jurisdiction  of  that  republic.  ^The 
people  of  the  United  State.,  a.  such,  could  have  claimed  no  special 
E-il!Sl  T^  ^?«,    domiBions  of  any  foreign  power  from  iLimemo- 
ria^  usage,  n  1 783  when  the  longest  duration  of  their  own  existence 
la  that  quality  washtUe  more,  atthe  utmost,  than  the  brief  period 
of  seven  years,  wh.ch  ,s  surely  not  beyond  the  memory  of  man, 
{ultra  "^rt'itn  homtnts.)    The  people  of  the  United  States  had 
never,  n  fact,  during  that  period,  enjoyed  the  fishing  privilege  a 
rr  f  L5?r?  ^^^^^JS?""^  prevented  therefrom  by  the  existing 
state  of  hosti, ties.    Nor  could  the  inhabitants  of  the  colonies,  ori? 
ginally  con.Utut.ng  the  United. States,  even  in  their  colonial  cind  - 
tion.  acquire  against  their  sovereign  any  right  from  lone  uZe 
(65)  0,  n««  lapse  of  time,  (M)  („«u«m  f  mpL  4  occur)    The  bT 
tish  .overeign  was  always  competent  to  regulate  («7)  and  retrain  W. 
It-??  i°i     *'  '^^T^'^^e  '•««'  intercoune  with  each  other,  when- 
suhwt  i    fr^'*'' *?' ™«]'*  ^'''"'^  P«>P«r'  ""d  had  he  forbid  his 
JSI  «  k'°  *.k^  r'''"^^  °^  ^"*>  Massachu«t„.  to  fish  (69)  anJ  dry  and 
SL  „      K  i  frJ^y"*  harbours,  and  creeks  of  Labrador,  which,  by 

S«  ir  V  ^^^''k  ^i*''*  conceived  themselves  discharged  from 
the  obligaUon  of  submitting,  on  account  of  any  pretended  right  from 
immemonal  usage.  The  fishing  privilege,  Zrefore!  enfoyed  by 
British  subjects  w.thia  British  jurisdiction,  could  give  no  perma- 
nent and  independent  right  to  those  subjects  themsekes  and 
(71)  a  fortiori  no  such  right  to  the  citizens  of  the  Suited  States 
Claiminp    under  a    (72)  different  estate   and    in    «\lJ«L..^„f  -f  * 

Gre.,  BriUio  .nigh..  i„'de,d.  a,  „ell  prliUo^S  °p"  erSS 

can  establish  a  prescriptive  right  m  thJ  people  of  New-Orleans 
uTJe  ^17  ^«'^,f "^"f'^  ^?  '^^^  that  presc/ption  i.  (74^  iaappS?;: 
ble  .0  the  part.es.    it  is  also.  1  conceive,  inapplicable  to  the  subject. 

Had  the  United  States,  as  aq  independent  nation,  enjoyed  from 

Efen  estlbli  hed"'  a'hZ  VTu'^'''^  "«^^  ^''^  ^^^^'  »>«-«  thence 
been  established.    A  right  to  fish,  or  to  trade,  or  to  do  (76)  anTrti,., 

act  or  thing  within  the  exclusive  jurisdiction  of  a  foreign  s  ate    -.  a 
(77)  «a,ple  power,  a  right  (78)of  mere  ability,  (y«,«er«/SJS  iC 


UvrucAn.} 


Yd 


Preicrtption  («o)  «pp««rf  to  be  Jn«.»..r    i . 

As  to  the  parties  :~ihe  immi^!    vS*^  '"  C«3)/««-<  and  ,jr«/ 
within  Britiab^risd  ctioS!  b?  BrS"^  l^J'^y-^nt  of  a  pri^  W« 
BriUsh  colonies,  couJd  not  well  bl!o    •?''-^*f**'  *''«  '"'  S»itSf 
to  that  privilege.  (64)  clatd  b"  cZlTf/''^  ««  evidence  of  a  tiu/ 
lie,  rcHiding  within  the  excluJv^l^I-  ^^  *"  '"^'eP     dent  reilub 
people  of  the  United  States    '«  "^u"''''"""  °^  ^h«t  repub  ic  Tk: 
privilege  wthin  the  doLtC  ITtTfJ.'  ""'''  ^'"''" '"  ^^V^^^ 
monal  asage,  ,n  1783,  when  theloZltA  '«"  P^'^*'-  ^rotn  imme- 
istence  in  that  quality  was  little  Jl^'f  duration  of  their  own  et 
period  of  seven  yeal^,  which  fsS"*  ''!\"^'»o»^  than  the  brief 
man,  (ultra  me,mrium\ornSiis)    Thi^  "^^^  ^J^^^  ^^^  memory  of 
had  never,  in  fact,  during  that  periL  ^''P'!  V^^  ^""^^  StJtes 
a  moment,  being  effectuallv  nf  Mn/  fJ^^^d  the  fishing  privi/eee 
state  of  hostilities.  Nor  coumR,    '\°'f     therefrom  by  the  e,i2 
ally  constituting  the  Unit  rSt?t::t'"'?"^f  ^^^^'^  oJl^,^^ 
acquire  against  their  sovereiSv  ri.h?  f"  '''*."'  ^°'»°'«'  '^'""'itSn, 
mere  apse  of  time,  (66)  («w£K  fl^^'•°'n  'ong  usage.  (65)  „  tJi 
vere,gn  was  always  competent" 7eX??S*^•^    ^''^  «''^"h  so. 
their  commerce  and  intercourse  w^^hir.^    1°'  '**  '^'^''»'«  «»""»  in 
however  he  might  think  prope?     And  h-'.    "*?"•'  ^^'^''^^e^  ^nd 
in  the  province  of  (68)  Ma8.fchu'.et«  Si^"*''  «*>'**«''  »"«  subjects;   ^ 
cure  fish,  in  the  bays    harbonrr     f  ^'  ***  ^'h,  (69)  „d  ,0  drV  and 
|>1*!>« -7.had  (7Vn?.ltr;X^^^ 
imagined  that  they  would  have  cnZJ-    V^J  '^""'  '*  's  not  to  bi^ 
from  the  obligationVsubmX:;;;ra:^^^^^^  d.charged 

from  immemorial  usage.  ^       accc  unt  of  any  pretended  right 

withi'yrUi"h%Sc^^^^^^  by  British  subjecte 

ent  right  to  those  subjects  themSL       P«/"a«ent  and  independ-* 
nght  to  the  citizens  of  the Vnitedl^S  'f  ^  ^''^  "^"''"^'^  noCch 
fcrent  esiate,  and  in  a  different  caDaci/v    r  ''^'  """«'  "^^er  a  (72)  cS 
as  well  prescribe  for  the  p"SS;  S-T  *''"«''' «"'«ht,  indeed 
as  we  for  any  of  the  priviS whi!^t       ^'^f  sovereignty  over  ue 
I  do  not  think  it  neLssarftoTnaSL''?  ^V^'^  asfe? subject 
people  of  Massachusetts  wJi{°J^^'''^  how  far  the  practice  K 

wHoie  original  thirteen'S^it'^S^Sate^^^^^^^^  i?>  ^'^  P«' l^«  oft 

including  Louisiana ;  or  how  far  <h!^'       °^  **'*  '^"'ted  States  now 
of  Boston  can  establish  a  pTescri^^^^^ 

Orleans.    I  trust  1  have  -a'JZl^  ^   '^"1  m  the  people  of  n/JT 
(74W«.a*fc  .oMept^r'^  *°°"fi^  '^  «how  that  prescrit^r" 

UnitJd'^^e;.lsr?nt;e;^^^^^^^^^        to  the  subject.     Had  the 
morial,  the  fishing  privS  i„  „  ''?'  *"J°>e*'>  ^om  time  ,mmf 


74 


[rRivjiTe'.) 


'pjending  oa  tjiie  will  of  such  state,  (79)  and  is  consequently  impreicripti* 
We.    An  indcpfindent  (^O*)  title  can  be  derived  only  from  treaty. 

I  conceive,  therefore,  that  (80)  our  claim  to  the  tinhing  privilege^ 
from  immemorial  usage,  is  not  only  unsupported  by  the  (8l)facit 
but  cannot,  in  (82)  effect,  result  from  such  usage. 

I  have,  (^)  from  this  view  of  the  subject,  been  led  to  conclude, 
that  the  treaty  of  1783,  in  relation  to  the  fishing  liberty,  is  abrogat- 
ed by  the  war  ;  that  this  liberty  is  totally  destitute  of  support  from 
prescription  ;  (8*)  and  that  we  are,  consequently,  hft  without  any  title 
to  it  whatsoever.  For,  I  cannot  prevail  upon  myself  to  seek  for 
such  a  title  in  the  relative  situation  of  the  parties,  at  the  time  of  ne- 
gotiating the  treaty  of  1783,  and  contend,  according  to  the  insinqa* 
tion  contained  in  our  letter  to  you  of  the  (85)  Slst  of  Pecemt^er,  that 
the  jurisdiction  of  Great  Britain  over  the  colonies,  assigned  to  hep 
in  America,  was  a  grant  (86)  from  the  United  States,  and  that  the 
United  States,  in  making  tlis  grant,  (87)  reserved  to  themselves  the 
privilege  in  question.  Such  a  pretensiop,  however  lofty,  is  so  in- 
consistent with  (88)  the  circumstances  of  the  case,  and  with  any  sober 
construction  which  can  be  given  to  that  treaty,  that  I  shall,  I  trust, 
be  excused  from  seriously  examining  its  validity. 

Having  thus  stated  some  of  the  reasons  which  induced  me  to  differ 
in  opinion  from  a  majority  of  my  colleagues,  relative  to  the  cha- 
racter of  ihe  treaty  of  1783,  as  well  as  with  regard  tq  every  other 
foundation  on  which  they  were  (89)  disposed  to  rest  our  title  to  the 
fishing  privilege,  I  shall  now  proceed  to  explain  the  (90)  causes 
which  influenced  me  to  dissent  from  them  in  the  interpretation  of 
•ur  (91)  instructions. 

These  instructions  forbid  us  to  permit  our  (9?)  rights  to  the  trad» 
beyond  the  (93)  Cape  of  Good  Hope,  to  the  fisheries,  and  to  Louisiana,  tO 
be  brought  into  discussion.  I  conceived  that  this  prohibition  ex- 
tended to  the  general  rights  only,  which  affected  our  sovereignty, 
and  resulted  from  it,  and  not  (94)  to  mere  special  liberties  and  privi- 
leges which  had  no  relation  to  that  sovereignty,  either  as  to  its  na- 
ture or  extent. 

The  right  (95)  relating  to  the  trade  Ueyond  the  Cape  of  Good 
Hope,  was  the  right  which  belonged  to  us  as  an  independent  (96)  na- 
tion, incomipon  with  all  other  independent  nations,  and  not  the  peripission  of 
trading  to  those  parts  of  the  East  Indies  which  were  within  the  ex- 
clusive jurisdiction  of  Great  Britain.  In  like '^•iianner,  the  right  to 
the  fisheries,  contemplated  by  our  instructions,  was,  (97)  1  con9eived, 
the  right,  common  to  all  nations,  to  use  the  open  sea  for  fishing  as  well 
as  for  navigation,  and  (98)  not  to  the  liberty  to  fish  (99)  and  cure  fish 
within  the  territorial  limits  of  ^ny  foreign  state.  The  right  to 
Louisiana,  (loo)  which  was  not  to  be  brought  into  discussion,  was  the 
right  to  the  empire  and  domain  of  that  region,  and  (lOi)  not  to  the 
right  of  excluding  Great  Britain  from  (102)  the  navigation  of  the  Mis- 
sisflippi. 

How  far  we  conformed  to  this  instruction,  with  regard  to  thegC' 
neral  right  to  Louisiana,  it  is  not  necessary  foi  me  here  to  inquire  ; 


(OwpiicateJ 


75 


independent  (80»)  right  can  be  derived  only  IVoin  trcaCv 

I  conceive,  therefore,  that  (80)  a  claim  to  the  fisbini  uriviicge 
from  •mmemonal  usage,  is  not  only  unsupported  by  the  (SjJ^^ 
but  cannot,  in  f82)  ejTect,  result  froih  fucb  usage 

I  have,  (03)  in  this  view  of  the  subjpct,  been  led  to  conclude  thnf 

he  treaty  of  1783  in  relation  to  theihing  liberty, rabrogaledt 

the  war  and  that  th.s  liberty  is  totally  destitute  of  support  from 

prescnption   (84)  and  consequently,  .hat  we  are  lefj  without  «ny  Utle 

o  ,t  whatsoever      For    I  cannot  prevail  upon  myself  to  seek  for 

such  a  title  in  the  relative  situation  of  the  parties  at  the  titZ  Je 

negotiating  the  treaty  of  ,783,  and  contend,  ac'co';S!;^Vthe  1"^,! 

ion  contained     i  our  letter  to  you,  of  the  m  25th  of  Decemb*^ 

last  that  the  jurisdiction  of  Great  Britain  over  the  colonies  assign- 

fhA  n  •r/ST'''''"'  «g'-»nt(86>°Mhe  United  States,  and 
that  the  United  States,  in  making  this  grant,,  (87)  rtservedlo  ihtmselte* 
he  privilege  •"  q«'estion.  Such  a  pretension,  however  lofty,  is  sA 
inconsistent  with  (88)  the  real  circumstance,  of  the  case,  and  with  any 
jober  construction  which  can  be  given  to  that  treaty,  that  I  shall, 
1  trust,  be  excused  from  seriously  examining  its  validity. 

tf  avmg  thus  stated  some  of  the  reasons  which  induced  me  to  dif- 
rer  ID  opiDjon  from  a  majority  of  my  colleagues,  relative  to  the 
character  of  the  treaty  of  1 783.  as  well  as  with  regard  to  every 
other  foundation  on  which  they  were  (89)  disposed,  inconsistently,  to  rest 
our  title  to  the  fishing  privilege,  I  shall  ndw  proceed  to  explain  the 
(TO)  reasons  which  influenced  me  to  dissent  from  them  in  the  intei-- 
pretation  of  our  (91)  instructions  relative  to  that  privilege. 

These  instructions  forbid  us  to  permit  our  (92)  rights  to  the 
trade  beyond  the  (93)  Cape  of  Good  Hope,  to  theJUheriei.andto  Lmuiana, 
to  be  brought  into  discussion.  I  conceived  that  this  prohibition  ex- 
tended to  the  general  rights  only,  which  aflected  our  sovereignty 
and  resulted  from  it,  and  not  (94)  the  special  liberties  and  privilege's 
which  had  no  relation  to  that  sovereignty,  either  as  to  its  nature  6r 
extent. 

The  right.  (95)  relative  to  the  trade  beyond  the  Cape  of  Gootl 
S^r\  '^''^  t*»e  "gJ^t  w*>»ch  belonged  to  us  as  an  independent 
(96)  nation,  and  not  to  the  permission  of  trading  to  those  parts  of  the 
^ast  Indies  which  were  within  the  exclusive  jurisdiction  of  Great 
Britain.    In  like  manner,  the  right  to  the  fisheries,  contemplated 
by  our  instructions,  was,  (97)  i  conceive,  the  right  to  use  the  open  setf 
/oo>     J"^  ^*  "^f^l  "'  ^•"'  navigation,  and  (98)  not  the  liberty  to  fish 
(99)  and  to  cure  fish,  within  the  territorial  limits  of  any  foreign  state! 
^  He  right  to  Louisiana,  (lOO)  which,  by  those  instructions,  were  not  to  be 
brought  into  discussion,  was  the  right  to  the  empire  and  domain  of 

nW)  thfr*  ''"'^  ^'"*^ "  ri^"  ^if^y^"^.  excluding  Great  Britain  frpm 
(iwz;  the  free  navigatiou  of  the  Mississippi. 

JtTJZ  !^%^°"^?'''»«'?  to  this  instruction,  with  regard  to  the  ge- 
nerai  i jght  to  Lumsiaaa,  it  u  aot  i»ecessary  for  me  h«-e  to  inquire : 


w 


[fritatb.] 


1»ut  certainly  the  majority  beJieved  (lOs)  themielves  permitted  to  atfnt 
a  rery  explicit  proposition  with  regard  to  the  navigation  of  its  prin- 
cipal (104)  river.  I  believed,  with  them,  that »«  were  »o  permitted,  and  that 
w«  were  likewise  permitted  to  offer  a  propoiition  relative  to  the  fishing  liberty, 
and  had  the  occasion  required  it,  to  make  proposals  concerning  the  trade  to  the 
British  East  Indies.  I  was  persuaded,  that  tr<)ating  relative  to  these  privileges, 
or  dbcussing  the  obligation  or  e^  .?\vr:  of  ;.  >  .anting  or  witholding  them,  re- 
spectively, violated  in  no  wav  .> .  it  •suo.'iorij,  or  affected  the  general  rights  ' 
wUch  we  were  forbidden  to  b. .  g  into  diiic«t.sijion. 


Considering,  therefore,  the  fitibing  liberty  to  be  entirely  at  at» 
end,  without  a  new  stipulation  for  its  revival,  and  believing  that  we 
were  entirely  free  to  discuss  the  terms  and  conditions  of  such  » 
stipulation,  I  did  not  object  to  the  article  proposed  by  us  because 
any  article  on  the  subject  was  unnecessary,  or  contrary  to  our  in* 
structions,  but  I  objected  specially  to  that  article,  because,  by  con- 
ceding (105)  in  it  the  free  navigation  of  the  Mississippi,  (106)  we  offered, 
in  my  estimation,  for  the  fifhing  privilege,  a  price  much  above  its  value. 

In  no  view  of  the  subject  could  I  discover  any  (107)  analogy  between 
the  two  objects,  and  the  only  reason  for  connecting  them  and  mak- 
ing them  mutual  equivalents  for  each  other,  appeared  to  be  because 
they  were  both  found  in  the  treaty  of  1783. 

If  that  treaty  was  abrogated  by  the  war,  as  I  consider  it  to  liave 
been,  any  connexion  between  its  parts  must  have  ceased,  and  the 
liberty  of  navigating  the  Mississippi  by  British  subjects  must,  at 
least,  be  completely  at  an  end  ;  for  it  will  not,  I  trust,  be  attempted 
to  continue  it  by  a  (108)  prescriptive  titls,  or  to  consider  it  as  a 
(109)  reservation,  made  by  the  United  States,  from  any  grant  of  sove- 
reignty which,  at  the  treaty  of  peace,  they,  accorded  to  Great  Bri- 
tain. ,  If,  indeed,  it  was  such  a  reservation,  it  must  have  been  in- 
tended for  (llO)  our  benefit,  and,  of  (Hi)  course,  could  be  no  equivalent 
for  the  fishing  (U^)  privilege.  If  it  is  considered  as  a  reservation 
made  by  Great  Britain,  it  will  reverse  (113)  the  facts  assumed  by  us 
in  relation  to  that  privilege. 

Th'rf  (114)  third  article  of  the  treaty  of  1783,  respecting  the  fish- 
eries, and  the  (115)  eighth  article  of  that  treaty,  respecting  the  Missis- 
sippi, had  not  the  slightest  reference  to  each  other,  and  were  placed 
as  remote,  the  one  from  the  other,  as  the  limits  of  that  treaty  could 
well  admit.  Whatever,  therefore,  (116)  was  the  cause  of  inserting 
the  fishing  liberty,  whether  it  was  a  voluntary  and  gratuitouis  grant 
on  the  part  of  Great  Britain,  or  extorted  from  her  as  a  condition 
on  which  the  peace  depended,  it  could  have  had  no  relation  (H?)  to 
the  free  navigation  of  the  Mississippi.    Besides,  the  article  relative 


[nvrucm,] 


11 


cit  proposition,  with  rpTgrd  to  th^l  nt^r'i-  ^ '*''«''>' "pK- 
(iO^frivJ;;  now/chi.  offer VS.t;f^frS"?u/  '"^  »'""^'P«» 
be  .  V.0  atioa  of  the  .n.troctions  i„  que.  L   but  I  con.i'r  '."««''*••'''  "«  «• 

the.e  .„«ruction,  we  were  explicitly  a.id  implicitlv  dt^^^^P'"»  ^•'>-    % 

•tipulatioii  wi,ich  might  restrain  the  United  T«.Af  '"'"»«''"  «o  •void  an* 

yador.  from  the  naviSati.n  of  the  lake. "nd  r  W.  eS!^'^'*'*  »"«  B"«i* 

JurudkHon."    This  in.tn.ction  applied  wiJhtheTeateS?  "L^^^  "«'■  •«*• 

While  I  believed,  therefore,  that  we  ^»JZrmUu,dil%         "^P''' 
lative  to  the  fishing  liberty ;  and  that  Tn  triT.j?  "  *  P''Opo.ition,  rt- 

discussing  our  claiLo  it/weTn  no  w^^'o  XT?nr:?t?o  ^  ''"'"^'  «''» 
the  general  right,  which  we  were  forbidden  tS  brine  into  Z'""  "^•^•"•d 
lieve,  and  do  still  believe,  that  we  were  exnil^lv  «*„!  '^'".""'O"  i  »  did  b«. 
;o  offe.  or  to  renew  a  stimulation  foT  he  Te^a  C  l"'L^rR  "^  ^''l'"'" 
M.ss,ss.pp,,  a  river  within  our  exclusive  jurisdiction        '    ^     °  ^"""''  "^  »"• 

t^onsideriDg,  therefore,  ttie  lishirie   liberty  to  Ha  »,.♦•     . 
•nd,  Without  a  new  stipd.tion  tor  it  ZiZ     and  bJ  '^'^  *'."'» 
y  were  entirely  free  to  discuss  the  terms  and  conditio '«!?«  'l^^ 
«t.pulat.oo,  I  did  not  object  to  the  article  proposed  bin,   .'""*' * 
aay  article  on  the  subject  was  unnecessary  or  contr^^r/o*'""'* 
8troct.on.,  but  I  objected  specially  to  thataHHe  bSJ  k    '''"* 
ceaing  (105)  m  it,  to  Great  Britain,  tjfrte  uavi/ation  nf?h  T'  ^^  <=*'»- 
(106)  we  not  only  directly  violated  our  instructfnn?  h  ?         ?®  ^"Sissipp,- 
nation,  a  price  ^uch  abL  iU  ««/i^,  an? whiS  coJw  n-r^" 't'' '"  "^  "«- 

In  no  view  of  the  subject,  Uld  I  diseo^^^^^^^^^^^ 
relation  beetween  the  two  obiects  •  «r>rl  th^      ,  ^  i  ^  analogy  og 

them  and  -akin  Jhl'muCeqd  ^^^^^ 

0  be,  because  they  were  both  f2und  Tthe  treatf  of  nSs'T.^*^ 
treaty  was  abrogated  bv  the  war  <>«  i  ^^  -a  -7.  ,  *'^*  "that 
connection  betw'ee^^t^^Srts  mu'sVa^rcf^^^^^^  ^^'^^ 

navigating  the  Mississippi,  by  Briti8h7ubS'r,  /  V'.''*'^y  °^ 
completely  at  an  end-  for  it  will  IT i*-*.!' '""^*'  **  »e«8t  be 
tinue  it  by  a  oS);;«;'4l'iS^^' ";''/;"«*  be  attempted  to  ,,on, 

tion  made  by  the  United  StL«fr!:  consider  m  aa  a  (108)  restrv,. 

at  the  treaty  of^P^Mhl;^^^^^^^^^^^ 

ieX:d^^sr::-^St--5S^^^^ 

likewise  for  our  benefit.  If  Jt  isTl'  S*  ^"^  *^®  ^'*'»"8  ^"*>  P"^"«Se. 
Great  Britain,  it  will  reverse  (li3  aj^bf  ,f ."  reservation  made  by 
lation  to  that  privilege  '^''"'  *'''""«'^  ^y  "«  «  ri 

The  (114)  /Atrrf  article  of  the  treatv  of  i  la-i 
eries,  and  the  dis)  eigfuh  of  ha,  trttK        783,  respecting  the  fish- 
had  nottbe-slightesfreLInce  to«-H'?KP^*'"«.  ^^"^  Mississippi, 

remote,  the  onl  from  the  Xr  as  the  limiJ:  ""^^  P'"*^"^  " 

well  admit;  whatever.  therS  (lie  n.S?  ^^^.^bat  treaty  could 
inserting  the  fishing  liberty  wSerk  ZT.  \  "^T  '^^  ^«"»«  ^ 
tous  grant  on  the  part  of  Gr^at  Brhl Tr  L^'^i^F  ^"'^S^'tui- 
condition,  on  which  the  peacrdeoenS  Tf  ,?l*^  ^'■'""  "^^^  "  « 
lation  an,  wuh  the  f.e  '^atM^^^^^^^^^ 


n 


[¥tt^kftt.,\ 


(«  (hi*  rU#r  muni,  iVnm  U)«  i*v(«l«iil  v(«wt  nf  (h««  pnHii>t  «( (ht 
(im<*«  t^'^Hu  0'^)  *)**'''  Kviuiuutil  tviniioit*  (it  eufh  utliMr»  mid  iVom  (ItMlr 

lUl«r*»d  i»i'  ituiiunl  rtutl  P'ntrtl  whrtntH)j»».  «iul  niriil*lii*il  m  pulijwel 
thr  cnm|»««n»«w(i<m  or  ni\ju«(m«Mi(  (»  ««y  »(lu»r  pruviniiMi  iif  (Imt  Iri'uly. 
Wo(h  |»nrti0«  hpUi'Vtil  (luit  U»i«  rlv«»r  (mi(li«»il  ihi»  (offitiulpn  of 
bo(h,  und  (hm,  oC  «'o«««r.  both  hiul  «  il«l»l  ii»  H^  iinviy;«»iMii.  Al 
8pHi«  iHwu^Mpd  both  bunk*  of  thin  vif«t,  (n  n  oiiii^bbMiililn  (liMttncv 
lV«tm  i(*  moii(b,  mul  otto  uC  Km  Inittk*  iipitily  llniMiKlntiit  \in  wboln 
<i«t«»n(,  bo(h  imiltr*  bitti  lUt  iiitiM-otil  in  (iititiiiK  U\  iinvpiit  tbii(  power 
Y^H>m  olvndtiiMinit  it<  tinviKuiion.  Itiul  not  lbi«  iu'Ut'b>  b(>i<it  iiitPiiiiiHl 
tt>  pn^Ap*  tbp  pni(i«»i>  in  n'btUon  (o  M|min,  (bi'V  ^1  '«0  w.kiIiI,  iirntmliljr, 
h«v»  tmiilwJ  •»  t«»  (bi>  MrtviKiUlon  o('(bo  rivn-  (l"*t)nMhint.  (bnir  own 
tvnltoi ipii  pm»>n»UMl  on  it.  \m\  not  biwn  MipnluliHl  I\m  (bin  nnvittu 
W«n  to  (bp  o«'i»u«,  wbiob  ftp«M>»muily  oin liiMl  ii  tbioiigb  lbi>  exuliiilvt 
t«nitoi-i«i*  o(  8p»un. 

ir  (h«  oiiYumnlnnrrit  biul  b(«pn,  it)  (itot,  «nch  mm  tbo  |>«u*(i((*n  nt  thw 
lim«  boli«»v«d  (bi»m  to  bo,  inni  with  «  vunv  to  wbiob  (lioy  m>(t>il  \  ov 
h««t  (bpup  rin'un»»t«noi>»  unlmomirntlv  «»ii|nMle«i>p«l  no  imlic«l 
fbiintt<* ;  (Jit>Mt  lUitiiin  woub)  biut>  ituinpil  now  no  mum  (bun  *b« 
wmiM  hrtvn  urnntPtl  by  (bo  (»W)  if*v(vnt  ol'lbi'  uHirlo  in  I'obUion  io 
Otji)ih«  M(»«ii>»t)>)«l,  Mnd  wonbl  not,  nny  n)oi*«  (bini  in  (7lt,1,  biivc  m^ 
lkw«m|p«\gi'il  i»ny  tm«ivul»»nt  to  bo  oonU'vroil  by  il  Ibi*  our  liiierty 
vdrttiv**  to  tb«»  (UbvMfB.  Tbe  riivmn^tunrpi*,  bowovpr,  nfwnniiMl 
hx  (h<>  pMHi«>!>,  lU  tbo  (in\<«,  in  robtlion  to  Ufml  Hiitiiin,  »nil  iVuiti 
Wnioh  her  rigbtK  wniv  tlmbn'wl,  hnve  not  only,  in  port,  bPfii  ibuco- 
veitHl  mUto  htno  Pitintod,  bultbosi*  wbioh  did  pxlc*  »i«vp  biu<n  rn- 
tiihciy  chrtnni»»l  by  »nlM»t>qnon(  rvcntn.  It  bun  (»<  )  hr""  nii.i»it«innrt 
that  (h«  torritoripi  rtMignvd  to  U\ii[\i  HHlinn.  no  whpio,  in  Irtct, 
it»«rh«»d  tbi»  MiMJMippi  ;  «nd  tbp  n<«|oi«i(ion  oC  l.ooinimin  l»y  the 
tnit«d  St»«t<>»  (IW)I»«!<  Ibrcvpr  rpnmvnd  tbo  .Sp«nii»h  juii«dictiott 
lh*t  nvor. 

Tb0  wbol»>  oon«idorution.  tborolon*,  on  tbo  purt  n'Tlrmt  Hrlbiin, 
whothov  dorix od  (Kint  hor  toiiiloi ial  uinbtn.  or  \hm\  bor  purl  of  lb« 
rvoiprv>ortl  obUpc«tion«  robaivo  to  Hpnin,  bwvinn  ontiroly  lailod,  ouv 
enK««g«m«nt»,  ontorod  into  on  »rr,ount  of  lbrttoonBider«tion,in»y  b« 
t«irly  V  on«trued  to  bntro  tonninntoti  with  it. 

In  thin  viow  of  the  )»«l>ioct,  Gre.it  Brilttinoould  huvo  hnd  no  title 
to  th«  n«vim»tiiM»  of  tbo  Miwiiinippi,  oven  if  a  wwr  hnd  not  tflkon 

Since  botwoen  tbo  prtrtio!«.  To  I'onow,  tboroforo,  tbo  otnimii  of 
IroAt  Hritrtin,  under  Hmt  urticlo,  nubjort  to  thin  ronntruction,  wonid 
be  grunting  her  nothing  ;  wnd  to  rojiow  tbnt  urlicle,  indopomlent  of 
this  constiuftion,  nnd  without  Hny  roforenoo  to  the  ciroum«t«ncoi 
th*t  «tt«ndod  itK  origin,  in  t78,i,  or  to  the  ovonts  which  havonincA 
occurred  in  relation  to  it,  wooM  bo  grnnting  her  ndvuntiigon  not 
•  ©nlv  entirely  (•W\«ttt.inter»t,  m  it  rolatos  to  tne  urticle  iturlf,  but, 
(lffr)»tt  b«U«v«f  ot  much  grentcr  importnnce  thtin  nny  which  wr 
cOKkH  derive  flrotn  the  liberty  relative  to  the  tiisherie*. 


^p^Wi 


[ovrilOATl.) 


7t 


MH  HI  or  iHynmiiimil  in  niiy  ,,{Uov  i   ,„i,i/      /-n     7"'  ''"'  «""»PP»I- 

I'oU..  m„l  .1,,,,  of !..,««  II ,     .V  ?'  '  T.'r'  /»''' /•''^"•"'«-  ^f 
pM«M.JlHMl,h«,,k,o.i|,i,;v;\'  7''\V"«/".  A,Hj,„|„ 

limll«.|  I,  ,0  u..  ,„.vl«..ion  .V   i     V^^  '^  -"""  h«7 

whirl,  tlipy  „d«„|,  or  h«,l  tl.^.ri    Z1.„L    •    ".''  *"*"'  •  *'«'*  '0 

»»«co„lWr.i.l  by  U.  for  our   iLVey  rdX «  o  ^^^^  »« 

'•••Ion  to  Uvm  rirlSiTom  wirh  d?i"  "''  ''""'• '»  r- 

'"r« ""'  •'"'^ '"^v;!'  ir^ltt  ;j/^^^^^    «'««^"'^«i. 

but  tlioNu  wliiili  dill  i.k,.t  !..„«  I '  ,        •""  t«  imve  ««  ile4, 

Ort»»i  JlritHln,  no  wlinro.  in  furl  rn«r  !1.  .i     «•     * "f'*^"'  "•••Uned  U> 
qui-ili«nofho;.i.i.nuj;Vl^'Sffi^^^^^^^ 

1 1«  S|Mni.h  j'.ri«d.ctlo,; from  th  .rrivr  q W^^^  t"'*"". r""'*««^ 
Oierolbrc,  on  tho  p«rt  of  Ureu  tri  2  Ji.  ..  "i'"  P'":*''*"*"""!!. 
territori.,!  ri«l,t.,  oV  from  I  «r  « r  5  ?' ^i'"/*'"'"  '^rt"^  ^•"'"n  her 
t«live  to  H|*in;i.,,vin/«  t"  r  fild'rr'P'"'*"'  •''''««t»OM.  r.. 
Into,  on  «ccoont  of  tl.Ht  c  nI,"lL  i„?.  'Il  /'"KWeni,.  .„ter«d 
hnv«  tmn.in..t«.J  with  jt/^""""""^""""'  •"«>  »>o  l«,rly  conitruadto 

In  ttiifl  view  of  the  Huliinrt  Hfnnt  n..:*  i         <•  • 
to  the  n«vigntioM  of  'he  Ei.S  "vl;    ?"      *"*.'"  '""'  °*  »'^'» 
pince  hetwwn  tho  ui.rt  e«      Tn'  '*  ^      l!  "  '?'"'  *"«'  "»» ♦•ken 
Or.«l  Hrituin.  undor  fh    Scl«  lET'  r ''''^'•"  *''«  ^'«''"-  «f 
b«  Kr«ntin«  h^r  nothing  ^^^  t «      C'thVt  nr^I^-r'^T"^ 
Ihii  ronstruction,  md  without  anv  rZrlr.1    ?  .. '  "'.•'«P«'"'«nt  of 
thut  attended  it.  Origin  In  1 7X3  or  [oTlu!  „     *?  "'? '^''■^"'"••ance. 
occurred  in  r«luti«,?to  it/ Wuirbo  ,  LI  rh.r'''.'"'  ^"^*  •'"^« 

could  derive  fro^lTbtn:!:^;:^^^^  -»»-»»  - 


# 


80 


[PRIVATB  ^ 


lUl 


III! 


:;!J! 


!ill!l 


ff  the  artiele  which  we  (l28)ofifered  merely  intended  to  rescue  the 
third  and  eighth  articles  of  the  treaty  of  1783,  from  the  operation 
of  the  present  war,  and  to  continue  them  precisely  as  they  ivere 
immediately  prior  lo  this  war,  the  third  article  being  then  in  full 
force,  and  the  eighth  article  being  no  lorger  (129)  obligatory,  we 
ehouh  have  attempted  to  exchange,  like  General  Drummond,  the 
dead  for  the  living. 

It  is  not  surprising,  therefore,  that-  the  British  government 
should,  in  suspecting  such  an  intention,  (130)  have  rejected  our  pro- 
position. !  was  opposed,  however,  to  making  the  proposition,  not 
only  because  I  was  convinced  that  it  was  (131)  offered  with  ho  such 
intention,  but  because  I  believed  it  would  give  to  Great  Britain 
the  free  navigation  of  the  Mississippi,  under  circumstances,  and 
evidently  for  an  object,  which  would  place  it  on  very  distinct 
grounds  from  those  on  which  it  was  placed  by  the  treaty  of  1783. 

The  whole  of  the  Mississippi  being  now  exclusively  within  the 
acknowledged  jurisdiction  of  the  United  States,  a  sinorple  renewal 
of  the  British  right  to  navigate  it  would  place  that  right  beyond 
the  reach  of  the  war,  and  of  every  other  previous  circumstance 
which  might  have  impaired  or  terminated  it ;  and  the  (l32)  power 
to  grant,  on  our  part,  being  now  complete,  the  right  to  enjoy, 
(133)  on  heis, under  our  grant,  must  be  complete  also. 

It  would  be  absurd  to  suppose  that  any  thing  impossible  was  in- 
tended, and  that  Great  Britain  was  to  be  allowed  to  navigate  the 
Mississippi  (134)  precisely  as  she  (13i>)  could  have  navigated  it  imme- 
diately after  the  treaty  of  1 783  ;  as  if  her  territories  extended  to 
it,  and  as  if  Spain  was  (136)  in  entire  possession  of  one  of  its  banks 
and  of  a  considerable  portion  of  the  other.  The  (13?)  revival  of  the 
British  right  to  navigate  the  Mississippi  would  be,  (138)  under  exist- 
ing circumstances,  a  new  and  complete  grant  to  her,  measured  by 
these  circumstances,  and  thence  embracing  not  only  (he  entire  free- 
dom of  the  whole  extent  of  (139;  that  river,  but  the  unrestrained  access 
to  it  across  our  territories.  If  we  did  not  intend  (1*0)  this,  we  intended 
nothing  which  Great  Britain  could  accept;  and,  whatever  else 
(l4l)  might  have  been  intended,  if  not  at  once  rejected  by  her,  would  hereafter 
have  been  the  subject  of  new  and  endless  controversy.  When,  how- 
ever, we  connected  the  icvival  of  the  navigation  of  the  Mississippi 
with  the  revival  of  the  (144)  liberty  of  taking  and  curing  fish  within 
the  British  jurisdiction,  two  things,  which  never  before  had  any  re- 
lation to  each  other,  we  evidently  meant,  if  we  acted  (143)  in  good 
faith,  not  only  to  concede,  as  well  as  to  obtain  something,  but  also 
to  be  understood  as  conceding  an  equivalent  for  what  we  obtained. 


In  thus  offering  the  navigation  of  the  Mississippi,  and  the  access 
to  it  through  our  territories,  as  an  equivalent  for  the  fishing  liberty, 
we  not  only  placed  both  on  ground  entirely  different  from  that 
(144)  in  which  they  respectively  stood  in  the  treaty  of  1783,  and 
acted  somewhat  inconsistently  with  our  own  reasoaing  relative  (9 


11 

m 


[DUPLICATE  ] 


81 


If  the  article  which  we  (125)  offered  was  merely  intended  to  rescue 
the  third  and  eighth  articles  of  the  treaty  of  1783,  from  the  opera- 
tion of  the  present  war,  and  to  continue  them  precisely  as  they 
were  immediately  prior  to  this  war,  the  third  article  being  then  in 
full  force,  and  the  eighth  article  being  no  longer  (129)  operative,  we 
should  have  attempted  to  exchange,  like  General  Drummond' the 
dead  for  the  living.  It  is  not  surprising,  therefore,  that  the  British 
government,  in  suspecting  such  an  intention,  (130)  should  have  re- 
jected our  proposition. 

I  was  opposed,  however,  to  making  the  proposition,  not  only  be- 
cause  I  was  convinced  that  it  was  (131)  made  with  no  such  inten- 
tion, but  because  I  believed  it  would  give  to  Great  Britain  the  free 
navigation  of  the  Mississippi,  under  circumstance^^,  and  evidently 
for  an  object,  which  would  place  it  on  very  distinct  grodnds  from 
those  on  which  it  was  placed  by  the  treaty  of  1783. 

The  whole  of  the  Mississippi  being  now  exclusively  within  the 
acknowledged  jurisdiction  of  the  United  States,  a  simple  renewal 
of  the  British  right  to  navigate  it  would  place  that  ri<>ht  beyond  the 
reach  of  the  war ;  and  every  other  previous  circumstance  which 
might  have  impaired  or  terminated  it,  and  the  (132)  right  to  grant 
on  our  purt,  bemg  now  complete,  the  right  to  enjoy,  (133)  on  the  part 
of  Great  Britain,  must  be  complete  also.     It  would  be  absurd  to  sup- 
pose that  any  thing  impossible  was  intended,  and  that  Great  Britain 
was  to  be  allowed   to  navigate  the   Mississippi  (134)  only  as  she 
(135)  would  have  navigated  it  immediately  after  the  treaty  of  1783, 
as  if  her  territories  extended  to  it,  and  as  if  Spain  was  (ls6)  in  tho' 
entire  possession  of  one  of  its  banks,  and  of  a  considerable  portion 
of  the  other.     The  (137)  recognition  of  the  British  right  to  navigate 
the  Mississippi,  would  be,  (I38)  under  existing  circumstances,  a  new  and 
complete  grant  to  her,  meabured  by  these  circumstances,  and, 
thence,  embracing  not  only  the  entire  freedom  of  the  whole  extent 
of  (l39)  the  river  and  its  tributary  waters,  but  unrestrained    a'  oess    tO   it 
across  our  territories.     If  we  did  not  intend  (J40)  to  offer  jhis,  we  in- 
tended to  offer  nothing  which  Great  Britain  could  accept ;  and  what- 
ever else  (1*1)  we  might  have  inte  .<ded  to  offer,  if  not  at  once  rejected  by  her, 
would  at  least  have  been,  hereafter,  the  subject  of  new  and  endless  con- 
troversy. 

When,  however,  we  connecteo  the  revival  of  the  navigation  of 
the  Mississippi  with  the  revival  of  the  r'42)  privilega  of  taking  and 
curing  fish  within  the  British  jurisdiction,  two  things  which  never 
before  had  any  relation  to  each  othef,  we  evidently  meant,  if  we 
acted  (143)  with  good  faith,  not  only  to  concede,  at  "ell  as  to  ob- 
tain nmething,  but  also  to  be  understood  as  conceding  an  equiva- 
lent lor  what  we  obtained. 

In  thus  offering  the  nav  •  ;ion  of  the  Mississippi,  and  the  access 
to  it  through  our  territorie_,  as  an  equivalent  for  the  fishing  liberty, 
we  not  only  placed  both  on  ground  entirely  different  from  that 
(14*)  on  which  they  respectively  stood  in  the  treaty  of  1 783,  and 
acted  somewhat  inconsistently  witb  our  own  reasoning,  relatiTC  to 


8a 


[PRIVATB.] 


Il«p  nriR^n  nuA  lmmort«Uty  of  lli«  laUpr.  Imt  w«  nltiTPd  to  ronoptle 
<I4:.)  ntu.h  morf  tlii«n  Wo  , nultl  «»0|>P  to  |B;»hi  (Hrt)  l.y  «|ia  anBiiHmimi.i. 
mi\U  whitlitvi^r  vipw  uk  ii^mpnrmlvf  ei(«>fU  mlitlil  lift  rslhimictl. 

ri'om  il\o  ypnr  178a,  lo  tlir  oomiMPitrPitiPttt  «»f  Ihp  prpupnt  wnr, 
the  Motuiil  mlv«ntaat»s  ili^iivptl  tVoin  tliPlifihinK  ttnvilpg(>  |»y  {\\p  u^o- 
nle  ot'  thp  I'nitPil  Suups,  wpip,  arooitling  to  llio  Ix^ni  iiiformntion 
thitt  ^Uf)!  ci»«  ohtni<i  on  tltp  pubjpr.t.  very  inconsidprfthle,  and  m»' 
nuidly  evupi'ionring  »  volnnlnry  diminutioti. 

It  w«B  di»rovriT(i  lluit  lltp  olVm-ity  mid  liumidily  (»f  tltp  ntmoB- 
pliPiT,  owing  \o  nimop*  iiupMunt  tbgn.  in  tlip  high  noiihpin  lntitUv>ei» 
tvljcro  Ihid  privilege  «««  ,  hiplly  lorntpd,   |»rpvpnipd  thp  ptrprtunl 
euriitg  of  iisi)   in  lliopio  ipjrioni,  Hud.  conspquonllv.  Ip!«!«pnpd  very 
mucli  (hp  vidiip  of  the  (14!0  iihurty  of  Inking  them  there.     Hy  ftr 
the  giprtleM  purl  ot  tl>p  lish  takon  hy  our  lUhpimpn  l»r»forp  the  pre- 
Bent  war,  wn*  (U9)fB(.Rtii  in  il,p  opp„  „p,,  or  (l:>«)u|inn  our  own 
cuHstH,  Hml  onrpd  on  (Ifli)  out  own  iihon>f..    'piijs  lunnrh  of  the  Unh- 
crips  Imr  k»ppn  found  to  Iw  i!H<xhrtnHtil»|p,  and   hiui  b^m  purNUed 
nith  »o  mnrh  more  corttnnly  «n«l  do-pnit  h  tluui  the  privilc  od  por- 
tion (l:.«)  within  th»  HiiUiii  juri-dirtion.  IhiK  it  \u\n  not  only  l.prn  ge- 
nerally prrfi.rrrd  In-  our  lUliprnion.  hut  would  prohiddv,on  longer 
esperipnoo.  Iwuo  lipon  tdmont  univ.M^dly  usod  hy  thorn.     It  wiw 
to  t>e  holioved,  thorrloro,  th«t  n  disoontinnnnop  of  the  prlvllegp  of 
taking  «nd  on nng  tish,  wijhin   the  Hrilish  jurindirtion,  would  not, 
nt  all.  diminish  ll»p  asiffrpguto  <puu»ti(y  taken  hy  the  ppopip  of  the 
Initod  StatPS  or  (1X1)  viry  imuennlly  vn.y  th<>  dptniU  of  the  hURinCBfl. 
That  part  of  tho  tijhoriofi  whiclj  would  (1.^4)  Mill  h«\«.  hi-lon^r,!  to  un 
««ttnaiion.  lu'iog  .'xhauf^MpM,  would  allbrd  an  ample  field  for  all 
the  capitid  and  imlostry  hitherto  omplovod  in  thp  general  hiuineit 
of  lishmg,  or  mproh;uidiM»»  of  lixh,  and  on  that  tield  iqight  the  few 
fisherman,  who  had  hhUorto  used  tho  lil>erty  of  taking  and  ruring 
f»«h  wuhin  thp  jurisdirtion  of  (I'roat  Hritain,  pxort  thpir  nkill  and 
lahour  without  «ny  ?priou««  luconrpnionco.     (' W) 'I"l''''lil»prtv,  liu- 
We^l5(0'"  a  very  considerahlodegroe  hy  the  torms  in  which'itwas 
granlt>d.  to  he  curtailed  hy  thpji^ovprnmpnf  andsuhjects  ofa  fo  eign 
PtatP  ;  alrpu«ly  growing  into  voluntary  dij»uspl)y  our  own  citizens  on 
account  of  th^  dittio.ulties  insonarahic  from'  it',  and  ahsolutoly  inca- 
pable of  oxtPn»ion  ;  was  totally  nnnoressary  to  us  for  »uh8l«tence 
or  ocrupation.  and  athmlod,  (t67)in  nn  wny,  any  conunercial  facility 
or  political  advantage.     This  privilege,  too,  while  it  wan  thuA  of 
little  (J5R)or  no  utility  to  us,  cost  Great  Britain  literally  (159)  nothing. 

The  free  naviiration  of  the  Mississippi,  with  the  necessary  accesi 
to  it,  is  a  grant  oT  a  very  different  character.  If  it  was  not  hereto- 
fore used  by  Ureal  Hritain,  it  was,  perhaps,  becmse  she  did  not 
consider  herself  entitled  to  it,  or  because  tite  circumstances  of  the 
moment  suspended  its  practical  utdity.  The  trpxty  of  1783  stipu- 
lated for  her  the  navigation  of  this  river,  under  the  presumption 
that  her  territories  extended  to  it,  and,  of  course,  could  not  intend 
to  give  her  an  access  to  it  through  our  territories.  'J'he  British 
pofwssions  to  the  westward  of  Lake  Krie,  being  altnyt  entirely 


l»trptitcAtii.j 


»d 


(he  origin  nnd  immorJrtliJy  of  tlio  InUer,  but  wo  ofToml  to  o«f.c.i,i»- 
(145)  «u.A  «,o,«  ,htt,.  »ve  could  hope  lo  gain  (I *fl)  bi IL tXr-m.^ 

a»K  nn.M,;,  ly  .>tpr,r  e„ci„«  «  ,„|u„t„ry  diminolio.K    ""'""«'^'«"''^'« 
It  WHS  .l.«r.,vorc,l  il,„t  the  obnrurifv  iin.l  humidity  uHUi^  ,.i.n«. 
phore,  ow.Mg  to  al.noM  inco^MOt  tog,  n,  tl.n  high  norther    lull  /Z 

much  lh«  VHlur  of  t .,.  (Mh)  ,rivii«««  of  i„kinK  tliom  thZ       ,v  Ju- 
th«  8iotttfl.l  part  or  11,0  ii«h  token  by  our  IwhoroZ  hifo,?.  « 

c«H«l«,  nn.l  cured  o,.   i',i)our.h..re.  'Tbi«  br«r.cJM,f  l^  ZJZ 

iii.«Jk.i...«,i  I...         .)"""<"'«'"",  tlint  It  boM  not  only  been  irt-nerully^ 

K  re  ti'i'  ;""'  ^""^'•'»«".  ''"t  would,  probuldy!  on  lon^r  r«  T 

nc  noe,  have  been  nlmo«t  univormdiy  UHe.l  by  tliem.     It  war  to  I  <. 

e  leve,  I,  tbereb,n,  tb.,t  n  di«con(inu,u,ro  ofUie  p"vilel  of.iki  ! 

ini  I    I';    ""'•';"  ^'•*'  "'■'""'  J''''i«^'i«ti«n.lvoold1fo?    t  HIL 

iUmUy  Inlbcrto  employed  in  tbuKenerAl  bi.«irl!«nf  <•    '  '"" 

cb««dueot(w.;„,^o;;tb„;ntK^b  :^n^^^ 

h.lberto.  u.ed  the  Uberty  of  taking  .,nd  curb.^i'h  w  u,,n  u'e  ?«' 
riHd.ct.on  ol  Ureat  llrituin,  exert  their  skill  «nd  lubouTw   hout  aC 

con.i;bM.:r"r"""^''';'  r'^ '''••"'  "''^'-^^  nabie,  /.o^r^t^jj 

consider, blu  degree,  by  the  terms  in  which  it  w.ii  granted  to  K 
curtailed  by  the  Kovernment  and  subjects  of  a  fovZn2ir  nti     i 

Z?   mnl  "^""*»K«-      '^his  privilcg, .  too,  while  it  wa     I  u    if 

little    (158)  ttiKl  procariouB   ul  htv  ''•    iih    r.rt«f   h *    u  •.         ..  "* 

(V>njnomng.  ^  '"   "*»<^^»t  Great  Britain  literally 

litfed,  for  her,  the  r„„,™"        ,  ,►  Ivi,.,  ,"  T"''/'  ""'  ''"l'»- 


04 


[fRIVATS.] 


utiROttled,  rendored,  perhaps,  the  free  naTij^tion  of  the  MiHsisfiippi, 
for  the  moment,  of  little  adv<intafl[e  to  her,  ptirticularly  as  her  right 
to  reach  it  tvus  at  least  equivocal ;  and  as,  by  another  treaty,  she 
could  curry  on  trade  >vith  our  Indians. 

This  naviKHtion  might,  indeed,  for  a  lonn  time  to  come,  be  of  lit- 
tle use  to  her  for  all  the  !  160)  legitimate  purposes  of  transit  und  in- 
tercourse ;  but  every  chaiuce  that  could  take  place  in  this  respect 
must  increase  its  importance  to  her;  while  every  chnnge  in  the 
fMihin;!?  liberty  (161)  would  be  to  tho  disadvantage  of  the  United 
States. 

The  freedom  (l<?2)of  the  Mississippi,  however,  is  not  to  be  esti- 
niated  by  the  mere  legitimate  wne^  tiiat  would  be  :na,le  of  it.  The 
unrestrained  and  undeHned  access  which  would  have  been  inferred 
from  tlie  article  which  we  proposed,  (163)  would  bave  placed  in  the 
hands  of  Great  Britain  and  her  subject!!  all  the  facilities  of  commu- 
nication with  our  own  citizens,  and  with  the  Indians  inhabiting  the 
immense  regions  of  our  western  territory.  It  is  not  in  the  nature 
of  things  that  these  facilities  should  net  have  been  abused  for  un- 
righteous purposes.  A  vast  field  for  contraband  (lU*)  and  inirigua 
would  have  been  laid  open,  and  our  western  territories  would  have 
swarmed  with  British  smugglers  and  British  emissaries.  The  re- 
venue would  have  been  defrauded  by  the  illicit  introduction  of 
English  merchandibo,  rod  the  lives  of  ourciti/.ens,  and  the  security 
of  a  valuable  portion  of  our  (1<»5)  country  oxposed  to  Indian  hostilities, 
excited  by  an  uncontrolled  British  influence.  (166)  if  our  iii- 
BtruGtions  to  guard  against  such  an  influence  forbid  us  to  renew  the  British  li- 
berty to  trade  with  our  Indians,  we  certainly  violated  the  spiiit  of  those  instruct 
tions  in  oflfering  tho  means  of  exercising  that  influence  with  still  gr&ater  facility 
and  effect  than  could  resuli  front  that  liberty. 


What  was  there  in  tho  fishing  liberty,  either  of  gain  to  us,  or  loss 
to  Great  Britain,  to  warrant,  in  consideration  of  it,  a  grant  to  her  of 
such  means  of  fraud  and  annoyance  ?  What  justice  or  equality  was 
there  in  exposing  to  all  the  horrors  of  savage  warfare  the  unoffend- 
ing citizens  of  an  immense  tract  of  territory,  (167)  not  at  all  benefited 
by  the  lishing  privilege,  merely  to  providfe  for  the  doub:'ul  accom- 
modation of  a  (168)  few  Afihernien,  iti  a  remote  quarter,  entirely  ex- 
empt from  the  danger  ? 

Such  have  been  the  reasons  which  induced  me  to  differ  from  a 
majority  of  my  colleagues  with  regard  to  the  article  in  question, 
and  4liich  1  trust  will  l>e  (169)  thought  sulticient,  at  least,  to  vindicate 
my  motives. 

The  unfeigned  res|)ect  which  I  feellbr  the  integrity,  talents,  and 
judgment  of  those  gentlemen,  would  restrain  me  from  opposing 
them  on  slight  grounds,  and  a  deference  for  their  opinions  aiaketi 
me  almost  fear  that  1  have  '  rred  in  dissenting  from  them  on  thd 
present  occasion.    I  can  but  rejoice,  however,  that  the  afticle,  as 


(DUPLICATE.] 


85 


tied,  rendered,  pvlinpu,  Che  free  Davi«ition  nfth.  ut    ■    ■     .  - 
he  momrnt.  ofliuie  advantage  to  hrr;  parti.  ?i'^^'''*? 
to  re«ch  ,t  «.H8.  nt  least,  enui?ocHl ;  and  K  J  '  ^  "  ^''  "«''* 
coul.  narry  on  tr«de  with  onr  IndLn      '      ^^  ••">ther  tr«ty,  .he 

^^^'^:^t:r^lCti>^^  be  or 

n..in,  hhert,  (^oL . ,« L  ^^^  ^:^  :tz  isiji:^ 

The   freedom  (162)  of  navigating  the  MisfiiMinn:    u 
to  be  estimated  by  the  mere  lecitimatp  ..ll   *W  '  ^°'^«^er.  "  not 

ie.     The  u„re.t.Led  anT.InT i'^  ^ cce^t^^^^^^^ 
been  inferred  from  the  article  whirh  wl  .?f    *  ^""ch  would  have 
placed  in  the  bands  of  Gre  t  BrTtaif  amU^erTh^^  """'  ^^^^ 

t.e8  of  communication  with  our  owrcilLpn/"*''^,"'^^^^^^  ^«'='«- 
inhabiting  the  immense  regio^of  our  wSnTe„ho^^^ 
•n  the  nature  of  things  thf.t  these  facili.i!.  «? .  . .  "^^l  '*  "  no* 
abused  for  unrighteous  purposes  A  ^a'fi'L?^^'^  "^*  l"^*  ''««•» 
and  for  intrigue  would  h.ve  lleen  laid  open  lift  '°"*:«''«»'*  ('«*) 
nes  would  have  swarmed  with  BritSh  ,  .  *"■  *^*''^''"  ^^''^^O' 
issaries.  The  revenrwm  d  h  .vp  it  "f*!'".'"*^  ^"^'«b  em- 
introduction  of  ^^..li.:;lrn:;;:ll;!n;  ;:^tiihetr,':f ''  *'*^  '"'^'* 

nnd    he  sec-  ,  valuahle   por  ion  of  our  ne^/   "'"  ''^•^*"»' 

have  been  exp  lian  l.o«tiii..  ''"";   ^'"r  (165)  country,  would 

tish  influrnce  JZ^uTV       f  ^^  ""  ""'^^"troHed  Br. 

of  I7y+,  "  allowing  the   North  \vt!t(T  '''«"«"re,  .o  renew  the  ueaiy 

trade,  whh  the  In.ilan  tnb'ttl^  l^^S'at    ';"'^''.  ''""'''  ^'^  '^»-y«'- 
of  which  have  been  most  .unsib/.,  /,«         e  or'el  *'"'  "'*  ''*"»'"«"«  eAfect. 

the  8pin,  of  those  i„«tru.Mions  in  on^!;! '      I,  P^ea  '  "If ''    "^  •  ■  ""^'"'^  ^'"'■"•«' 
with  still  greater  facility  and  effec  tl  a,f  r  uiri  rn     I,  f ''''"u""^  """  '"""«"« 

What  was  there  in  the  tishirg    her  v  SL^l"'"/''".*'^^^^^^^ 
to  Great  Britain,  to  warrar.t,    ^S;^'   Jf^/.f '"  *«  "«  «>-  ^oss 
of  such  moans  of  fraud  and  an  mvTnceTwh  f  "l-^  «'*«"*  '°  h*'' 
was  (here,  in   exposing  to  all    hrhorrors  If    ''"''"*  ''^^T'^'^y 
«nonondingci.ixe;,s  of  an  imn,er,7e  trTt  of  tpLw ''^^,7,'^'"'^"''  '^^ 

or    but  fair„ly,  benefited    by  the    ishLnr      1  ''^' ^^'^  "**'"' '"• 

for  the  doubtful  a.co.nm'o    .tion  of  a  aeswf '«?"'''''^  ''  ^'^^^'^^^ 

zz:r^^'^-  remote  SJ^i:.^^'!^;^;^:^^^:: 

The  iinfHia;n"d  respet-t  whi^h  7  :',..!  /u„  tt      •  . 
and,i,„l,na„,,  of  ,„„„!' ,„„u,t;„,  .iuldtsf^'i^'r^  •"'■"'■ 


86 


iFniVAT&.l 


proposed  by  us,  was  rejected  by  Great  Britaip  ;  whatever  were 
her  reasons  for  rejecting  it ;  whether,  as  above  suggested,  O^o)  ihe 
•uipected  some  tacit  reservation,  or  want  of  faith  on  our  part,  or  sup- 
posed, from  the  price  w«  at  once  bid  for  the  fishing  privilege,  that 
we  overrated  its  value,  and  might  concede  for  it  even  more  than 
(171)  the  navigation  of  the  Mississippi,  with  all  its  accessary  advan- 
tages. .  .    ' 

(172)  We  are  still  at  liberty  to  negotiate  for  that  privilege  in  a  treaty  of  com- 
meVce,  should  it  be  found  expedient,  and  to  offer  for  it  an  equivalent,  fair  in  ir« 
comparative  value,  and  just  in  its  relative  effects.  lu  any  other  way,  I  trust, 
we  shall  not  consent  to  purchase  its  renewal. 

I  have  tlie  honour  to  be,  with  profound  respect, 

Sir,  your  laithful  and  obedie»it  servant, 

JONA.  RUSSELL.' 

M7  areument  to  demonstrate  the  abrogation  of  the  treaty  of  1783,  by  the  pre- 
sent war,  and  the  consequent  discontinuance  of  the  fishing  privilege,  will,  I  trust, 
not  be  ascribed  to  any  hostility  to  those  who  were  interested  m  that  privilege.  I 
have  been  always  ready,  and  an.  still  ready,  to  make  every  sacrifice  fo't'"  Pre- 
servation of  that  privilege  which  its  nature  and  utility  can  justify  ;  but  I  have 
conscientiously  believed  that  the  free  navigation  of  the  Mississippi  wa?  pregnant 
with  too  much  mischief  to  be  offered  indirectly  jnder  our  construction  of  the 
treaty,  or  directly,  as  a  new  equivalent  for  Uie  liberty  of  taking  and  curuig  fish 
within  th«  British  jurisdiction. 

We  had  three  other  ways  of  proceeding :  . 

First  To  contend  for  the  indestructibility  of  the  treaty  of  1783,  thence  mfer- 
ing  the  continuance  of  the  fishing  privilege,  without  saying  any  thing  about  the 
navigation  of  the  Mississippi,  which  would  have  reserved  our  right  of  contesting 
this  navigation  on  the  grounds  I  have  mentioned,  specially  applicable  to  it. 

Seeondli/.  To  have  considered  the  treaty  at  an  end,  and  offered  a  reasonable 
equivalent,  wherever  it  might  be  found,  for  the  fishing  privilege. 

Tldrdly.  To  have  made  this  liberty  a  siK  qaa  non  of  peace,  as  embraced  by 
the  principle  of  status  ante  helium.  .  ,        ,o      . 

To  either  of  these  propositions  I  woald  tame  Mwnted,  aut  I  could  not  consent 
to  grant  to  revive  the  Biitish  right  to  the  »^is»w»n  of  the  Missisiippi,  m  Older 
to  procure  or  prcferve  the  fishing  liberty. 


[duplicate.] 


87 


proposed  by  us,  was  rejected  bv  Grant  WrU,:-     i.  . 
reasons  for  rejecting  it  !  whelhe^r,  ^^tl^.TT^^Z^^^^^^^^  ""V. 

Iiave  suspected  some  tacit  reservation  or  want  S  f  !?'  ^  ^  ™**'* 
or  supposed,  from  the  price  we  at  once T^  L  thp'^K'^'P''''' 
lege,  that  we  overrated  its  vi1„p  »n\  li^u.  'or  the  fishing  prm- 

morethan(17l)ti/^rn  Jiof  thlw^  '— ''^'  ^°'' '*  ^^^^ 
cesiary  advantages.  °^  '''^  Mississippi,  with  all  its  ac- 

.udSot",eTurei;VSfe;^e"a^:S\rr^^^    ''  ">isu„der.tood.     !„ 

mterests  on  any  of.he  constituent  0^^      No  1«        ''"'"''  *"  ""''«"*1"«  tht 

than  I  do,  a  branch  of  imlustry  wE  „ot  onlv  Lh"",'""'''''**'^  "PP''"^'"* 

seems  to  create  it.     Nor  nan  any  one  nor.  Z^  ,       J°  "*"*""''   *«'»''*'.  >>"* 

•patriotism  of  those  citizens  who'are";"  dTuTt  "^an'f 'h'  ',''  usefulness,  and 

to  deserve  well  of  the  republic     In  ti.n^f  J  ',      ''  '^^°  '"^*'«  "«'"  «as«d 

flicting  elements,  the  treasures  of  te  deep   o'e^  u?.  '""^  '''""•''  "™''"  ^°»- 

of  war  they  contribute,  by  their  skill  IZi^i^    f-     "'*"  country;  and  in  timet 

«ut,  in  our  country,  wheJ.  a     are  equaf   h    "f"'"^'/"  *""  ^''^'"'''  *»d  «'»'/• 

the  many  must  be  ^refor.ed   ti     e S;  i    ^1:71"'=""'^  ""'  prosperityif 

In  giving  this  preference,  I  will  fianklv  rm  f      ,1  ""T"  '"'"e""  of  »»>«  ftw. 

.ions  and  locarpredilections,  a  d  t„  S^teu  o  "h  co'.'  'V"'.""  *"'^  P"^" 
patriotism;  and  to  this  patriotism  I  dare  BnnP.i  f  ""^'  °^  *  '""'*  ""'''^S*"* 
with  those  to  whom  I  am  officially  responsib  fh  .  '"^ /indication,  not  -.nl, 
more  immediat«lv  r«nn<..,„^  ;„  "L-  'P"""''''''  f'"'  '^"1'  those  with  whom  I  am 


more  immediately  connected  in  socie  y  and  whn,  '"!  '*"""  *'"^  ^''°™  '  «"» 
to  have  been  unfavourably  affected  by  \l'e  vi'ws  whicH?  ""'','''  T"''""^ 
my  duty  to  adopt.     I  have  always  bep    Im  ,  '  ^'^'"'  ''""""*  '»  «°  '>« 

fishing  privilege  which  its  na  ^efor  co  ,na  alL  """l'  ""^  '""''*"  ^"^  '"• 
I  conscientiously  believe  that  the'  free  a^%"  io„  7^"^  ^""l"*  J^'^'j^'  ^-' 
access  to  it  which  we  exprenslu  offered      n!^  ^"  Mississippi,  and  the 

to  be  offered,  indirectly    ^3  our  7'   ,        P'"^R'"°t  «^i'h  too  much  mischief 

tney  were  in  fact  offo.S,  IT/  ew ^SStr  l^v^'TV  ""'  '"'^''^^  " 
ing  fish  within  the  Vrh\l  ,....:.^:„.:.:?"""''*'"'  ^""^  »'»«  ''berty  of  taking  and  dr». 


ing  fish  Within  the  L»ritishjuri?diction. 


I  will  frankly  avow.  hoivpv»r    tho»\_     • 

Great  B.i,Hin,'calcuh:ti  ^  :rti;e    ^  cS  '2lT'"'  77"'  ""''  «''"  "«'  «»>« 
has  sent  against  New-Orleans  confiZn  PO^'crful  expedition  Vhich  .h« 

the  mistrefsof  Louisiana  and  Cirut^t'rs"';^^^^  •"»-  ^-'"«' 

uaend  to  abandon  her  conquest  undertf^^^rVf'reta'y  ^^^henf ''  '"" 
lier  ministers  had.  almost  fir.m  ii.„  ireaiy  ot  lihent. 

«nly  affected  to  considr  our  aliliUon  7^?'''"""'  "'  ''"  "^'gotiation,  not 
agrandizement,  but  nisinuate^a'S  ""u  our  t^^^^^^^^^  T"^"'=«  «^  "^  'P'"*  «f 

to  obtain  the  free  navigation  of  the  Ms  ^^0^  °  .'  '•    ^'''f«'^^i"g.  'herefore, 
sent  to  part  even  with  the  lisliin.r  liiVo!!'      P^       '  "othing,  she  would  not  con- 

pointed  L  her  views  on  Lo;.tia;^a    a  7l  .  u*;;' i.ro:^'""';     ''  ^'?  ^«  '^-P" 
uwct  .i.a»  »K„  ....II  ....    ,    ,    ..  »  """  *  '"'St  In  Cod  and  the  valour  of  the 


west  that  she  will  be,  I  shaH  ..i^b;     ^  ,  ^d  if    i^  .J^f  *T  ^^'""'  "^  '^ 

and  just  in  its  r.la.ive  eriect.  ;  a.t  to'n  lo  S  brVt'^r^h"'"''"'^'"''  ^'*'""' 
.uo.e  wise  than  to  demand  it  as  a  .onrf.So  peace  o  ' ''^J^  >^«^"l«"tIy 
beyond  its  worth,  and  which,  hovvevor  excessive  rm'-^h  ?  "'^"/"V'  *  P''c« 
fused,  merely  by  the  operation  of  thosl  nl         '  "  '"'*'*''^  °'^  '"'*"g  «' 

meviiably  eiiei.dered  Ly  a  rtefifwar.  ""•"^'^"'"■"«'l'""'g  l">««o..s  which  are 

I  have  the  honour  to  be,  with  liie  iiinst  r>rr>f„.     i 
and  obedie'.t  servant,  "  profound  respect,  sir,  your  faithful 

To  the  llon'ble  Jamks  Monroe,  JONA.  KUSSELL. 

iicc^VoJ  tHauZflhe  United  StaUs,  ice.  &c.  &c 
^,,l*!:!!f  .^Py^'^-rP^P^^  '«'''  ^v  Jonathan  Russell,  esn.  .t  <K.  n„. 

House  of  Kepre.se;tativef Sfthe  Unttelrstate"'"""'''^''  '^  '^' 

J.  Q.  ADAMS,  Secretary  of  State. 


88 


p> 


Mill' I 


REMARKS 

On  a  Paper  delivered  bu  Mr.  Jonathan  Russell,  at  the  Department  of  Slate,  on 
the  22d  of  jipril^  1822,  to  be  communicated  to  the  House  of  Rtpresenlativesj 
as  the  duplicate  of  •  Letter  written  by  him  at  Paris,  the  Uth  of  Februarj/, 
1815,  to  the  ihen  Secretary  of  Slate,  and  as  the  Letter  called  for  by  the  Resolw 
iumofthe  House,  qfldth  April,  1822. 

The  first  remark  that  presents  itself  upon  this  duplicate,  is,  thct 
it  is  not  a  copy  of  the  letter  really  written  by  Mr.  Russell,  at  Paris, 
on  the  11th  of  February,  1815,  to  the  Secretary  of  State,  and  re- 
ceived by  him.  The  latter  was  marked  "private,^*  and,  as  such, 
was  not  upon  the  files  of  the  Department  of  State  ;  and,  although 
of  the  same  general  purport  and  tenor  with  the  so-called  duplicate, 
differed  from  it  in  several  highly  significant  passages,  of  which  the 
following  parallel,  extracted  from  the  two  papers,  presents  one 
example  : 

ORIOINAL.  DUPLICATE.  * 

*•  How  far  we  conformed  to  **  How  far  we  conformed  to 
this  instruction,  with  regard  to  this  instruction,  with  regard  to 
the  general  right  to  Louisiana,  it    the  general  right  to  Louisiana,  it 


is  Dot  necessary  for  me  here  to 
inquire  ;  but  certainly  the  majo- 
rity believed  (103)  themselves  per- 
mitted to  offer  a  very  explicit  pro- 
position with  regard  to  the  navi- 
gation of  its  principal  (104)  river. 
/  believed,  with  them,  that  we  were  so 
permitted,  and  that  we  were,  likewise, 
permitted  to  offer  a  proposition  relative 
to  the  fishing  liberty,  and,  had  the  oc- 
casion required  it,  to  make  proposals 
concerning  the  trade  to  the  British 
East  Indies.  I  was  persuaded,  that 
treating  relative  to  these  privileges,  or 
discussing  the  obligation  or  expediency 
of  granting  or  withholding  them,  re- 
spectively, violated,  in  no  way,  our 
instructions,  or  affected  the  general 
rights  which  we  were  forbidden  to 
bring  into  discussion." 


is  not  necessary  for  me  here  to 
inquire  ;  but  certainly  the  majo- 
rity believed  (103)  themselves  to  be 
permitted,  their  own  construction  to  the 
contrary    notwithstanding,  to  offer  a 

very  explicit  proposition  with 
regard  to  the  nnvigiition  of  its 
principal  (10*1)  river;  now,  this  of- 
fer. 1  considered,  for  the  reasons  just 
suggested j  not  to  be  a  violHtion  of  the 
instructions  in  question,  but  I  consi- 
dered it  to  be  against  both  tiie  letter 
and  the  spirit  of  our  other  instructions 
of  the  15th  of  April,  1813.  By  these 
instructions,  we  were  explicitly  and 
implicitly  directed  '  to  avoid  any  sti- 
pulation which  might  restrain  the  Unit- 
ed States  from  excluding  the  British 
traders  from  the  navigation  of  the  lakes 
and  rivers  exclusively  within  our  oum 
jurisdiction.^  This  instruction  applied 
with  the  greater  force  to  ihe  Missis- 
sippi, because,  as  it  i>  believed,  it  was 
the  only  river  to  which  it  could  apply. 
**  While  I  believed,  therefore,  that 
we  were  permitted  to  offer  a  proposi- 
tion relative  to  the  lishing  liberty,  and 
that  in  treating  concerning  this  liberty, 
or  in  discussing  our  claim  to  it,  we  in 
no  way  violated  our  instructions,  nor 
affected  the  general  rights  which  wc 
were  forbidden  to  bring  into  discussion, 
I  did  believe,  and  do  stitl  believe,  thai 


89 

DOPLICATK. 
w«  were  exprewly  and  unequivocally 
forbidden  to  offer,  or  to  renew,  a  stipu- 
lationfor  the  free  navigation,  by  the 
Br.t.sh,of   the    Mi«,,.:ippi, 'a   rivet 
*""""  °"f  exclusive  jurisdiction.'' 
It  18  here  seen  that,  while  in  the  oricinal  letter  Mr  r.,»    n  jj 
mth  tl,„  .najorhy  of  hi,  colleag„e.,  oeifeJe /ha  "e^ere  pel  fiS 

had  been  discussed  at  the  meetiniya  nfiuli  ^?<=eroDer,  I8I4.  It 
preceding  mh  ,„d  ^.h  ofToSer  On  S^zThTr';'  °"  '^ 
Ihe  American  plenipolentiaries  hadreceiv ed  a  leutr  5    "■' '"°?"'' 

"  lum,  you  will  understand  fh.?v!!         ^    f  *°  the«ta/„*an<e  6c/. 
"  basi^  of  a  treaty  ''  ^°"  '''■^^  authorized  to  make  it  the 

Now,  the  status  ante  helium   unon  wh.vk  *.,« 
and  unequivocally  pero^.ttedircl"  e^^rettr^rdtdTort 
the  recognition  of  the  entire  treaty  of  peacrof^TSi   hw.Th       ^ 
vival  of  the  tirst  ten  artirlps  nf  tui  *     \      f  '^'^'  "^^  ^"^  re- 

freedom  to  the  BritisMona^^^^^^^^^  "?  '^"'^  the 

into  our  territories,  and  frelfrade  with  o.r?^''  ''"'  ^?^  '^S''^^' 

tTW^V't ''''  ^'  the"rn:f;;':ti:nf o  T5  r  a"-.i  is  r  '"■ 

cited  by  Mr.  Russell,  considered  by  the   Pre"dpn.  L,  ^*^'^',?r 
that  It  was  omitted  from  that  couv  whirh  LT  cancelled, 

to  Congress,  of  "so  much  .ft  hF'  V    .•   «^  ^^en  communicated 

terms  L  whidi  w^wr:!!  t X";  reV:ee^'''"'VV%^^' 
several  printed    ouiea  were  ihuTfl    """^^  PP«ce,    and  of  which 


90 


19th  October,  1814,  tVesh  from  Washington  ;  nor  at  all  poesible 
that  he  should  have  considered  us  as  then  bound  by  the  instruction 
«f  15th  April,  1813,  to  which,  :a  his  duplicate,  he  now  so  emphati- 
cally refers.  The  11th  of  February,  1816,  was  yet  so  recent  to 
the  date  of  the  conclusion  of  the  treaty,  that,  in  writing  the  original 
of  his  letter,  the  recollection  of  the  new  instructions  of  October, 
1814,  had  doubtless  not  escaped  him.  But  when  the  duplicate  w»« 
written,  other  views  had  arisen  ;  and  their  aspects  are  discovered 
in  the  aggravation  of  charges  against  the  memory  of  a  dead,  and  the 
character  of  living  colleagues. 

But  whether  the  real  sentiments  of  ,VIr.  Russell,  at  Paris,  on  the 
llthof  February,  1816,  with  regard  to  the  transactions  to  which 
this  passage  relates,  are  to  be  taken  as  indicated  m  the  original,  or 
in  the  duplicate,  certain  it  is  that  the  vjjhement  objections  to  the 
proposed  article,  which,  in  the  duplicate,  appear  to  have  made  80 
deep  an  impression  on  his  mind,  had  as  little  been  made  known  to 
his  colleagues  at  the  time  of  the  discussions  at  Ghent,  as  they  ap- 
pear to  have  been  to  himself,  wjien  writing  the  original  of  the  same 
letter. 

The  proposal,  to  which  the  whole  of  Mr.  Russell's  letter,  in  both 
its  various  readings,  relates,  was  made  to  the  British  plenipotentia- 
ries, not  by  a  majority,  but  by  the  whole  of  the  American  mission, 
including  Mr.  Russell,  as  may  be  seen  by  the  protocol  of  the  confer- 
ence of  the  1st  December,  1814,  and  by  the  letter  from  the  Ameri- 
can to  the  British  plenipotentiaries,  of  14th  December,  1814.  In 
that  letter,  already  communicated  to  the  House,  the  American  ple- 
nipotentiaries, referring  to  the  article  in  question,  expressly  say  : 
"*  To  such  an  article,  which  they  viewed  as  merely  declaratory,  the 
undersigned  had  no  objection,  and  have  offered  to  accede  :"  and  to 
thfit  letter  the  name  of  Mr.  Russell  is  subscribed. 

At  the  time  when  the  letter  from  Paris  was  written,  or  within  a 
few  days  thereafter,  all  the  colleagues,  whose  coprluctit  so  severe- 
ly censures,  in  relation  to  measures,  to  which  Mr.  ilussell's  sanction 
and  signature  stood  equally  pledged  with  their  own,  were  at  Paris, 
and  in  habits  of  almost  daily  intercourse  with  him.  They  little  sus- 
pected the  colouring  which  he  was  privately  giving,  without  com- 
munication of  it  to  them,  of  their  conduct  and  opinions,  to  the  heads 
of  the  government,  by  whom  he  and  they  had  been  jointly  employ- 
ed in  a  public  trust  of  transcendent  importance  ;  or  the  uses  to 
which  this  denunciation  of  them  was  afterwards  to  be  turned. 

Had  the  existence  of  this  letter  from  Paris  been,  at  the  time  when 
it  was  written,  known  to  the  majority  of  the  mission,  at  whose  pro- 
posal this  offer  had  been  made  ;  to  that  majority,  who  believed  that 
the  article  was  perfectly  compatible  with  their  instructions,  con- 
sistent with  the  argument  maintained  by  the  mission,  important  for 
securing  a  very  essential  portion  of  the  right  to  the  fisheries,  and  in 
nowise  affecting  unfavourably  the  interest  of  any  section  of  the 
Union,  they  would  doubtless  have  felt  that  its  contents  called  much 
more  forcibly  upon  them,  to  justify  to  their  own  government  them- 


91  * 

•elvea  and  their  motives  for  making  that  oroDOisI    than  Mr  R... 
.ell  conld  be  called  upon  to  justify  fum,eH^forme;eyhav?ng^ee; 

Jdveie  n.rtv  h  A     r/h"'"^.^'""!:  '"  P'«l'"«i°g.  and  which  the 
Mverae  jiarty  had  notthouRht  worth  accej.'iug. 

i  he  writer  of  these  remarks  is  not  authorized  to  .ppak  for  hi« 

rP  rhfr  ''^'''*  ""T"'^  '  ""■''  "'''^*^°'"  '«  "^'^  alike^eyond  the 
reach  of  censure  and  panejiyr.ck;  and  the  oth., ,  well  able  when 

he  shall  meet  th.s  d..clo.«re,  to  defend  himself  But  he  beireveJ 
of  them  what  he  affirms  of  him.cif,  tiK.t  had  they  entertained  oHhe 
projected  article,  and  of  the  argument  maintained  by  the  mis  ion 
he  sentiments  avowed  in  either  of  the  vuriatious  of  Mr.  RusselTs 
letter  from  Pans,  no  coi.  i.leration  wo.iid  have  induced  them  to  con- 
In  JiK\''n*'P°r7  '^'  V  '"•''"'■'''«  ^''^•'-  "^^e"  to  .  paper  declar- 
*ng  that  tJiey  hud  no  objection  to  it. 

wifh'l'hi^''.'  '/  r'n  ^'*''  ''''"''^  *''^^  ^•'''^  t^'o^ght  it  reconcileable 
mth  their  cluty  to  their  country,  had  they  entertained  those  senti- 
ment  .  to  have  subscribed,  on  the  25th  of  December,    1814,  the 

«T„  r«T;."^r^'  ""''■'"  '',  '^"^  f'^'^'^^y  °^  S»«te,  already  com. 
»unicated  to  Congress,  and  on  the  s  -ne  day  to  have  written  the 
separate  and  secret  letter,  fore-announ  ..g  that  of  11th  TfcVuI 
ry,  I  a  16,  Irom  Pans, 

Besides  the  memorable  variation  I  .tween  the  original  and  du- 
p hcate  of  the  letter  of  1 1th  February,  1816,  which  has  been  e/ht 
bited  m  parallel  passages  extracted  from  them,  there  are  others  not 
less  remarkable.  In  the  course  of  the  duplicate,  the  total  and  un 
Son  ?!^  «^andonment  of  the  rights  of  the  poor  tishermen  is  com- 
coun?Iv  thi"-  \"  ^^'l"7^P«"^'p>:'c  upon  their  usefulness  to  the 
country,  their  hardy  industry,  their  magnanimous  enterprise  and 
their  patriotic  self-devotion.  Uttle  of  lifis  appears  in  the^rTginal 
and  that  l.ttle,  m  the  after-thouglu  of  a  posircript.     Towarrthe 

wrTe;'  'bv  hfs'M  ^'  'r  T^  ''r^'^y  takes'possession  of  Ihe 
writer.  By  his  "  trust  in  God,  and  in  the  ralour  of  the  West,"  he 
foresees  the  victory  of  General  Jackson  at  New-Orleans.  He  fore- 
sees the  convention  between  the  United  States  and  Great  Britain 
of  October  1818.  In  the  original  there  isnu  prophecy-nV.'  trS 
in  God,  and  in  the  valour  of  the  West."         ^    '^      ^  ""*' 

borlte^nl!  T'^i  '""'rf!  '4^.-*''"  "'P'"'  «^^^^  ^«"«r  f<^™  inela- 
borate and  deeply  meditated  dissertation  to  prove  • 

of  1  tV^'^Ik'"?*^  ^^T'I!  ^**^  ^"'^'.'^  ^^''^^'  ""d  Great  Britain, 
JJl  \  V^t^l  which  upon  Its  face  is  a  treaty  of  independ- 
ence, a  treaty  ot  boundaries,  a  treaty  of  partition,  as  well  asa 
r  S  ?  r^'^^T'^^'' '"  ^'l^^t'^n^tion,  all  his  signatures  at 
Ghent  to  the  contrary  notwithstanding,  a  mere  treaty  of  peace, 
totally  abrogated  by  the  war  of  1812.  ^ 

'*  Jn  n  ^l"^  '""'^  ^^''K'  ""^  ^  ^'^""^y  *'«■  ^^»«'-»»'  consisting  of 
two  parts  ;  one,  of  rights  appertaining  to  sovereignty  and  in- 

«?'».!!  rr  V""'^  ^^"  "'*'"'"•  "''  ''P"*^''''  g^«"t«  and  privileges; 
ot  which  the  former  were  permanent,  and  the  latter  abrogateU 


M 


<b, 


^. 


<>%.  ^ 

i>'^^ 

X^.:^.^'^ 


IMAGE  EVALUATION 
TEST  TARGET  (MT-3) 


1.0 


I.I 


2.8 


1^ 


IL25  i  1.4 


2.5 
2.2 

2.0 


m 


1.6 


Hiotographic 

Sciences 
Corporation 


23  WEST  MAIN  STREET 

W  BSTER,N.Y.  M580 

{/16)  -72-4503 


<> 


"^^  . 


o 


m 


^^      ^^1^ 


^ 


<^ 


0 


a 


mmmmmmmm 


92 


3.  That  the  principle<i  nsiiided,  and  the  argameDt  maintained, 
by  the  majority  of  the  Ghent  Mission,  and  to  which  he  had 
subscribed  his  name  in  all  the  joint  communications  of  the 
Mission,  as  well  to  the  British  plenipotentiaries  as  to  his  own 
government,  were  a  mass  of  errors,  inconsistencies,  and  absur- 
dities. 

4.  That  the  offer  to  the  British  plenipotentiaries  of  a  right  to  the 
British  to  navigate  the  Mississippi,  was,  in  the  opinion  of  the 
majority,  and  also  in  his  own  opinion,  permitted  by  our  in- 
structions, and  in  no  ways  violat'^d  them. 

5.  That  the  same  offer  was  directly  contrary  to  thu  construction 
given  by  the  majority  to  their  instructions,  and,  as  he  bad 
always  thought,  and  still  thought,  contrary  to  explicit  and 
implicit,  express  and  unqualified  prohibitions,  in  those  instmc- 
tions. 

6.  That  the  offer  of  the  right  to  navigate  the  Mississippi,  as  an 
equivalent  for  the  fisheries,  was  the  offer  of  an  excessive  price* 
for  a  privilege  worth  little  or  nothing. 

7.  That,  extravagant  as  that  offer  (to  which  he  signed  a  letter  . 
declaring  that  he  had  no  objection)  was,  it  was  rejected  by 
the  adverse  party  ;  because  they  thought  it  an  offer  of  the 
dead  for  the  living ;  or  because,  they  hoped  to  get  still  more 
for  the  worthless  privilege  ;;  or,  because,  they  expected  ta 

.  take  and  keep  Louisiana,  and  thus  get  the  navigation  of  the 
Mississippi  for  nothing;  or,  because,  they  were  blinded  by  the 
unhappy  passions  incident  to  war  ;  but  that  he  foresaw:  that ' 
they  would  hereafter  grant  all  the  valuable  part  of  the  same 
worthless  privilege  for  nothing. 

8.  That  there  was  no  sort  of  relation  whatsoever  between  a 
privilege  for  the  British  to  navigate  in  waters  within  our  ju- 
risdic^.ion,  and  a  privilege  for  us  to  fish  in  waters  vnthin  Bri- 
tish jurisdiction  ;  becaaf^e  one  of  these  privileges  had  been 
stipulated  in  the  third,  and  the  other  in  the  eighth  article,  of 
the  treaty  of  1783 ;  and  therefore,  that  it  was  absurd  to  offer 
one  as  an  equivalent  for  the  other. 

9.  Lastly,  that  the  offer  to  the  British  of  the  right  to  navigate 
the  Mississippi,  was  pregnant  with  mischiefs  to  the  western 
country — to  "  the  unbending  citizens  of  an  immense  tract  of 
"  territory,  not  at  all,  or  but  faintly  benefited  by  the  fishing 
"  privilege,  merely  to  provide  for  the  doubtful  accommodation 
"  of  a  few  fishermen,  annually  decreasing  in  number,  in  a  re- 
"  mote  quarter,  and  entirely  exempt  from  the  danger." 

Upon  most  of  these  points,  so  far  as  argument  is  concerned,  it 
might,  upon  the  mere  statement  of  Mr.  Rasseirs  positions,  be  left 
to  his  ingenuity  to  refute  itself.  His  first  and  second  points,  with 
regard  to  the  character  of  the  treaty  of  1783,  considered  ae>  doc- 
trines, are  evidently  inconsistent  with  each  other.  T^he  variation 
between  the  original  and  duplicate  of  bis  letter  upon  the  fourth  and 
fifth  points,  is  something  more  than  inconsistency  ;  something  more 


03       * 

'«ven  than  self-contradiction.    The  wl.ftin.i-«  i. »       *. 
*ue  of  misrepresentation  of  e.erfprrt  of  it     V"  f  J«borio«  Ji.. 
duct  and  sentiments  of  his  colleagues  whl  .     "^^'^^ '  °^  *^  co"' 
of  the  mission ;  and  of  h L  own  S.T     f  "^^^t.^ted  the  majority 

tion  to  them.  U  substantia^cwis  th-''"!^  '°  ''^^''^' 
wanton  violation,  in  the  face  of  hisSmn  "'■^^  deliberate  an^ 
and  unequivocal'  instructiW  faeTr  ,^^^^^^  PO-itivS 

sacrificing  the  interest,  the  peace,  the  coSSL*'  ^°^*^«  ««ke  of 
whole  western  country,  to  the  douhtfi.i  ®  */'"^*"*^«  o^'tbe 

eastern  fishermen,  and{;*rupporfof  flirtrrh'^'^l^^^  'i  «  ^^'^ 
the  shadow  of  a  right  *'*'  "  °*  a  claim  to  which  they  had  not 

in  cpposition  to  them  ^""^agues,  and  of  his  own  conduct 

grantingloTetthThe'!?r^^^^^^  ^'i-^-  o^an article, 

equivalent  for  the  irant  of  rfi-hf  "^'^^  !"«  '^^  Mississippi,  a«  m 
«2n,as  if  ithad  bfenl/ep^JjtJir^^^^  British TurisdiS 

grants,  in  a  distinct  article,  wC  reLen  "  /nlh*''?^ ^l  '^  »•'' 
gotiation  at  the  time  when  it  was  made  tnT  *''^'****  ""^^^^  "«- 
It  was  made,  and  to  the  consideralTor  1  h!°  .^  u'''''^"  "P«°  '^Wch 

Mr.  Russell  reprLLtrthc  Side  -  -^  ''J'  '^^"'  •°*^""^- 
stances,  when  it  was  bvbothD«r^i«      f'^  ffifred  under  circum- 

had  no  claim  to  ter^it^  t  Zmlst^TJ^t'  ''**  ^  ^"^"^ 

.  ™*^-  .Kussell  represents  the  offer  of  a  ri^ht  f«  „  '^  .  ...  , 
«i8s,pp,,and  of  access  to  it  from  the  Britifhtlr^r'^*^  *''*  ""' 
and  unqualified  ;  asgivins  access  trR.?fK.  ^r"*^'''*^  ^s  general 
issaries  to  everi  paftTf  the  wp«  pr  *"  ^^^^^  ^""^  ^"^ish  em- 
with  all  ourlndi^s  ^  Thtpro^talCS'l-/.'  •''*^^*^^»"« 
a  single  spot  of  the  British  t'errftory,  7o  the  r^ei^'foj  Z"''  '^^^ 

warfare  upon  the  weslern  countrr^'ntelt  :n?erT  °^/"^'"* 
proposal,  not  that  which  was  made  but  fh!?^^/      u^°f®?  ^^""^  * 
torted  by  his  misrepresentationr    '         *^«t  into  which  iti,di,. 
^  Of  the  conduct  and  sentiments  of  his  colleairues 

spirit  of  their  most  explicitTd  imX?t  .v  "^  the  letter  and  the 

instructions  from  their  own  goveZment  "XV"^  unequivocal, 

with  having  violated  the?r  ow^ncSuction  of  the?^''/'''?'  *^'^' 

.    ?  '^  ^T  ^^^''  •"  «°other  reading  o??hrsamerPtl?*'"'*'°!f- 
to  have  been  written  on  the  same  dav  Hp  !T-,1^^'  purporting 
all  violation  of  their  iJtrilrtiTnT     7a    .  ^^•l"'*^  ^^^^  entirely  rf 
of  that  opinion.        ""*'"^*'°°«'  »°d  declare,  he  had  always  be^ 

18 


Mr.  Russell  ascribes  to  his  coUengues  opinions  which  they  nev^ 
<ntertaineil,  arguments  which  they  never  advanced,  and  doctrines 
tvhich  they  not  only  would  discfaim  with  indignatioD,  but  diametri- 
cally o|»po9ite  to  those  which  they  did  maintain.  He  imputes  to 
them  the  opinion  that  the  Independence  of  the  United  States  was 
derived  only  from  the  treaty  of  peace  of  1783,  and  that  all  the 
rights  stipulated  by  it,  in  favourof  the  people  of  the  United  States, 
Were  mere  grunts  from  the  crown  of  Kugland.  This  was  the 
British  doctrine,  whirh  Mr.  Russell  well  knew  his  colleagues  re- 
jected with  disdain,  hut  which  he  himself  countenances!  by  main- 
taining the  British  side  of  the  argument,  that  the  fishing  liberty, 
stipulated  in  the  treaty  of  1783,  was  abrogated  ipso  facto  by  the 
war  of  1812. 

.He  imputes  to  them,  as  an  inconsistency  with  their  other  imput- 
eti  opipioir,  that  they  rested  their  claim  to  the  fishing  privih'gc, 
Upon  preuription ;  and  this  notwithstanding  all  the  light  of  learn- 
ing with  which  he  had  irradiated  them,  from  the  lucid  sources  of 
**jux  mcntfacuUulh  ,"  of"  nitrn  memoriatn  /i<wiinw  ;"  of'*nullnm 
tempus  orcurril  rcgi  ;^'  and  of  the  imprescriptible  character  of  fish- 
eries. Of  all  this  not  one  word  was  said  at  Ghent.  The  majori- 
ty never  asserted  the  right  of  the  fishing  privilege,  as  resting  upon 
the  right  of  prescription  ;  nor  had  they  ever  the  benefit  of  Mr. 
Russell's  learned  labours  to  prove  that  it  was  not  applicable  to  the 
strbjecf. 

3.  Of  his  own  conduct  and  sentiments,  in  opposition  to  those  of 
ihe  majority  of  his  colleagues. 

The  parallel  passages  from  the  original  and  duplicate  of  his  let- 
ter remove  aW  necessity  for  fur. her  proof  of  this.  But  that  is  not 
all.  Throughout  the  letter,  Mr.  Russell  holds  himself  forth  as 
having  been  the  intrepid  and  inflexible  asserter  and  supporter  of 
the  rights  of  the  West,  against  the  majority  of  his  colleagues  ;  as 
having,  by  a  painful  struggle,  obtained  a  conquest  over  his  early 
prejudices  and  local  partialities,  and  enlarged  his  intellectual  facul- 
ties and  patriotism,  to  become  the  champion  ami  vindicator  of  the 
interests  of  the  West.  Of  all  this,  nothing  was  made  known  to  his 
colleagues  of  the  majority  at  Ghent.  The  article  to  which  his 
letter  conjures  up  such  formidable  objections  was  drawn  up  and 
proposed  lo  the  mission  by  a  distinguished  citizen  of  the  western 
country.  It  was  opposed  by  anotner  citizen  from  the  same  section 
of  the  Union  Of  the  five  members  of  the  mission  Mr.  Russell 
was  the  person  who  took  the  least  part  in  the  discussion.  He  nei- 
ther objected  that  it  was  contrary  to  our  instructions,  nor  depre- 
ciated the  value  of  the  fisheries  ;  nor  painted  the  dangers  of  British 
smugglers  and  emissaries,  or  the  horrors  of  Indian  warfare,  as  im- 
pending over  the  umf ending  inhabitants  of  the  western  country 
from  the  measure.  He  gave,  it  may  be,  a  silent  vote  against  pro- 
posing tbe  article  ;  and,  when  it  was  determined  by  the  majority 
to  propose  it,  concurred  in  proi'osing  it ;  was  present  at  the  con- 
ferences with  the  British  plenipotentiaries  when  it  was  proposed 


95 

those  which  he  ha^iT'.e  '  rel^fn  k^bl  '''  "«'  ^'"''^^^  «"«  <5* 
them;  |,„t,  plainly  and  simply  beca^i''     «'»,  t^  jevise  for 

wUh  coadition«  which  maRVnorXo/^^^^^  '' ^"^  <^'°«g'^d 
Rvalue  to  induce  them  to  concede  th»m-r"^"''.'i'"'  "*  ''''''**"^* 
Br,t,«h  jorisdiction,  should  conlinuV  i^  Z    "'""« 'l'^*-'''^'"'  »^i""« 

and  bis  country,  that  he  ever  assented  t  ^ '' '.?  ^''\  '^^'^^'^i^nce 
under  the  slightest  obligation  to  assent!  h  a  '  ""'  "*^  »^''«  "^^^ 
Jon  y,  .t  would  have  been  equa7v  v .1  ?!  './'  'I."  "'^  °^*'^*^  »». 
or  signature  as  with  ii.  More  £  n  '^^?"'  '*''  concurrence 
and  on  more  than  one  occas  o,.  sLniZVh''^^'"  ""^  '^^  '°'«'io^ 
Jhne  signing  the  treaty,  if  pa HirX   '1    "  *^^'^'™'»-''ti^n  to  de. 

Bnt.sh  plenipotentiaries  sho'il    be  a  eSto'T'  T^''''"^  ^-'  ^^^^ 
refusal  by  any  one  member  to  concurTn  .nv    ^  ^^"^  '""J''^''^    A 
a  majority  were  agreed,  won  d  Z\Zi    ^  '"!"*"''<^  "?«"  ^hich 
Jo  re-consider  their  vot^  and  „  .11  nr,     rr^  '"'*'!'"''  '^^  '"'yority 
In  a  case  of  such  transcendent  ?,^     Probability  to  have  cancelled  it 
generous  policy,  hZTeZ  tXrTnrtt"'  °""^''  '"^^'^^^ 
saciihced.  in  defiance  of  the  mosrevMrT  '   ?'    '  '^""''^"'j^  'o  be 
tiOQs.to  the  paltry  purnose  ofT       '  ?'  ''"'^  ""q^aJified  instruc- 
titute  of  all  c'laimVrrh    ho'w    oStT  '""Z  ^^'^^^"^^"'  ^"- 
conference  with  the  British  uL^^  1  * •    •  ^""®  '  "^  patiently  i„ 
of  it^to  them  ?  HowcoSd  he  suSll  h''"'"''  ""^  J°'"  '"  »»>«  ^^er 
ing  he  had  no  objection  to  ii'  £  «  '  «  '  "'m  T*^  *»  '^"^''  ^^clar- 
measure  of  the  majority  and'thevha!i;t  1'"''"'^'''?^^"^  ^'^'^  th'« 
doubtless  have  reported  0  his  own  P^'"'*'^^  '"  '*•  he  would 

dissent ;  his  colleagues  of  the  m^    government  the  reasons  of  his 
reported  theirs  ;  Z^e  XSZZ"^'  'l  "'^^  '"''""^''  ^^^'^       . 
rested,  as  ,t  ought,  upon  their  re  pecZ  «L    T  P*"'^  '"^"''^  ^^^^^ 
ally  in  the  measure  ;  to  sign  aH  tCn.         ''  ^°  'i^"*^"^  individu- 
secretly  io  write  to  he  gofornmen?  fMT  "Pf^^'^S  '^'  «"^  ^he^* 
and  misrepresentation,  fSTt  nnH.L    ''''  f  '^^"'"''«'  reproach, 
indeed,  a  shorter  and  oVS^^L^  e,s  '''''''  "'''°  ^''^'''''^  '^^^^^ 
Mr.  Russell,  therefore  rtiA      .\ 

the  opinion.  di^loT^lrii," tae"  frorp;:- '"  '7r'  »'  «'•'»'. 
for  u„.ie  i„  the  represe>,latir„f  i  i ?"/""''/"''  '"^  been  as  un. 

^ered.    ,f  ,t„e  were  an,  force  in  hi,  ..^™en;  ^^IJ^tret 


96 

•urti.  or  nny  corractnexs  in  his  itntoments  nijninit  hit  coUenguof, 
it  is  propflr  thoy  i«ho«l<>  be  wiOtMl  nnil  fixiuniiiod  | 

L«t,  un,  tliorol'on»,  exumino  tl»o  proposoil  article  in  both  iti 
p»rt»  :— -rtrst,  nK  rolmcii  to  (b«  li»l»iiiK  lil»«M'ty  for  ii«  ;  and  seromlly, 
to  the  nnvii^iition  of  ihv  M\n<*mw\)i  l>y  tho  Biitiih.  And,  in  order 
to  Rdfiortun  tho  propriety  of  tho  principlo«  unnumpd,  nnd  of  the 
msimuron  udoptm!  by  tha  Amerioim  couuniasionorn,  ns  now  in 
quoHtion,  let  ii«  prfimiiO  tlie  iituto  of  thinn«  iw  they  oxinted,  and  the 
circmmtunreii  under  which  thin  proponid  wus  olTered. 

By  the  third  article  of  the  troatv  of  17«3,  it  wu«  agreed,  that  the 
people  of  the  United  States  shouhl  continue  to  enjoy  the  fishorioi 
of  Newfoundland  and  the  Bay  of  St.  liuwrencc,  and  at  all  other 
plucea  in  the  »ea.  where  the  inhabitants  of  both  countricn  used  at 
any  tiiM  theretofore  to  fish :  and,  also,  that  they  nbould  hnve  certain 
fiihing  libertieii,  on  all  the  fishing  coa»t  within  the  Hriti»li  mrisdic. 
tion  of  Neva  Scotia,  MuRdalcn   Inlands,  and  1-iibrndor.     The  title 
by  which  the  United  States  held  those  fishing  rights  and  libortiei 
WM  the  same.     It  was  tho  pos«fl«sory  use  of  the  right,  or,  in  Mr. 
Runxeir*  more  learned  pliraso,  of  the  '' jus  meufJrtfuUatiB,''  at 
any  time  theretofo'-o  as  British  subjects,  and  the  acknowledgment 
by  Great  Britain  of  its  eonlinmnre  in  ihc  people  of  the  United 
States  after  the  treaty  of  separation.    It  was  a  national  right ;  and, 
therefore,  as  much  a  right,  though  not  so  immcidiato  an  interest,  to 
the  people  of  Ohio  and  Kentucky,  aye  and  to  the  people  of  Loui» 
■iana,  after  they  became  a  part  of  the  people  of  the  United  States, 
M  it  was  to  tho  people  of  Massachusetts  and  Maine,     The  latter 
had  always  used  it,  since  they  had  been  British  colonists,  and  the 
coasts  had  been  in  British  dominions.    But,  as  the  settlement  of  the 
colonies  themselves  had  not  been  of  time  immemorial,  it  was  not, 
and  never  wus  protentled  to  be,  a  title  by  prescription. 

Such  was  the  title  of  the  United  States  to  the  fiaheriea— prior 
possession,  and  acknowledgment  by  the  treaty  of  1783. 

The  commissioners  at  Ghent  had  received  from  the  Secretary  of 
State  a  letter  of  instruction,  dated  525th  of  June,  1014,  containing 
tho  following  passage  i  ,         .       r  * 

♦'  Information  has  been  received  from  a  quarter  deserving  o  at- 
« tention,  that  the  late  events  in  France  have  produced  su  an 
"effect  on  the  British  government,  a*  to  make  it  probable  u.at  a 
*•  demand  will  be  made  at  Gothenburg,  to  surrpntler  our  right  to  the 
** fisheries,  to  abandon  all  trade  beyond  the  Cape  of  Good  Hope, 
"  and  to  cede  Louisiana  to  Spain.  We  cannot  believe  that  such  a 
«  demand  will  be  made  -,  should  it  be,  vou  will  of  course,  treat  it 
f*  as  it  deserves.  These  rights  must  not  be  brought  into  discussion. 
"  If  insisted  on,  your  negotiations  will  cense." 

Now,  it  is  very  true  that  n  majority  of  tl-e  commissioners  did 
construe  these  instructions  to  mean,  that  the  right  to  the  fisheries 
was  not  to  be  turrendercd.  They  did  not  subtilize,  nnd  refine,  and 
inquire,  whether  they  could  not  surrender  a  part,  and  yetnot  hnng 
the  right  into  discussion,  wheUicr  we  might  not  give  up  a  liberty, 


9t 


I  yet  rfstain  n  right ;  or  whether  it  who  an  arpnm0f,f  n*  ««  ^ 


and 

tnent, 

not  to  be  nurrtndttrr.d, 

thnt  the  right  had  been  {'orfci?.,  bV^ ':^„ra:rhj  tVC^'f  J 

American  r.HnnuM.onc,.,,  «,  thoy  .li;i  at  the  flpHt  conferonre  .Mhat 

th*    BntH  .  ^ovcrnn,..nt  did  not  intend  to  ^^rnn^  to  the  United 

fh  r'  f;'^".''""'''^. !''^'  l"'^''''«"^  Tunnerly  granted  by  trcntv ^o 
them,  of  iHhuiK  *vilh.M  thu  limilH  of  the  BrilfMh  «ovoroi(rtUv  «lJ 

•' neri^^'S  it (•  I  "•  •"''"i''"'  ^'"•""^••'-  ^«"p«'nHS cS 
murh  n    Tl  L  r  »    ''.'*'""''.?;       Novr;  to  „|,lai„  the  »urren,hr  of  th.ii 
much  of  the  nahencB,  nil  tluU  tht,  Bntinh  nlcnipotonliarien  ro,M 
po«Mh!y  denrc,  was,  that  the  An„.rican  co  nnn^Hion"       houM  «i 
qiiiOHce  .«  the  principle,  that  the  treaty  of  1 783  Z  «l  roS  bv 

me    ig hi.     Mr.  Kus^ell,  iif  we  can  mako  any  thine  of  his  nnr.im«r,/ 

ine  rcuection,  that,  m  the  rn,'ht  hul  not  been  brouffht  into  di.r... 
«on,  the  .nRtrnclionn  would  not  have  been  violated.  """ 

But,  however  clearly  he  expresses  thi»  opinion  in  hii  letter  nnil 
however  pmnfully  he  endeavours  to  fortify  it  by  argnm ont  hi  ^ 
vor  did  disclose  it  to  the  same  extent  at  Ghi  .f      TI,I      i  '       "?" 
which  it  wa«  possible  to  .„.ot  thlttitatio^oVthe  BHttrZ^^ 
potenUanen.  without  .urrcnd.rin.  the  rights  wli  h  i  jeoptd^ed 
w««  by  denying  the  principle  „,,on  which  it  wa«  fouiided      S 

enco  ot    783  was  of  tbat  class  ot  treat  es,  and  the  riht  in  nuirljAh 
of   he  character,  which  are  not  abrogai;d  by  a  slbseVueSt  war* 
hat  the  notification  of  the  intention  of  the  British  ffovernmenTnni 
to  ren...  the  grant,  could  not  atfect  the  right  of  tL^UnUedStlti-    " 
which  had  not  been  forfeited  bv  the  w«r  -ISth^  • .     •      .' 

^  .Un  ij.  0.rce.  ...e  "..Ue^tlZ^'tLrd Uto^^tSZmS 
Bnt™  to  revive,  nor  ,m,  new  article  lo  confirm  it.  '" 

J-U,  i„d«oe„«W,  „eo.,.„ry  ,.l?et^;TSo„  ?o™?„'^'^^^^^^ 
the  British  demand  of  surrender  had  been  ont  forth  k?.*?  j  • 
itself,  and  maintainable  on  the  m^t  eXreed  hnl.i  !°""*' '" 
ous  principles  of  international  kw  ?t  wTasi  a„rm^inf«r'^^ 
by  the  American  plenipotentiaries  at  GhnT  nni?r  Tl."*"'".*^ 
ment  of  Mr.  Russet,  i'sutlSThrfi^htriib  tV  ;,'b  to'"t 
»nto  d.scu.ss.on,  at  least  it  did  ml  surrender  the  rigS  ^ 

a  was  not  acceded  to  by  the  British  plenipotentiaries  Each 
party  adhered  to  its  asserteJ  principle  ;  and  the  treaty  was  onrf,7 
ed  without  settluig  the  interest  iivolved  171  fe  thrtimp' 
and  aker  the  original  of  Mr.  Russell's  letter  oAhe  Hth  Februa^' 
1816  was  written,  the  principle  asserted  by  the  American  nS* 

tCTonr''."*  ?'^'"*'  '^'^  ''•^^"  ^*'"  «««"*«^  »"^  mafnSd  through 
two  long  and  arduous  negotiations  with  Great  Britain,  and  haa  passid 


98 

the  ordeal  of  minds  of  no  inferior  ability.  It  has  terminated  in  u 
new  and  satisfactory  arrangement  of  the  great  interest  connected 
with  it,  and  in  a  substantial  admission  o(  the  principle  asserted  by 
the  American  plenipotentiaries  at  Ghent;  by  that  convention  of 
20th  October,  1818,  which,  according  to  the  duplicate  of  Mr.  Rus- 
sell's letter,  ha  foresaw  in  February,  1813,  even  while  writing  his 
learned  dissertation  against  the  right  which  he  had  been  instructed 
nottosurrenfjer,  and  the  only  principle  by  which  it  could  be  de- 
fended. 

At  this  time,  and  after  all  the  controversy  through  which  tha 
American  principle  was  destined  to  pass,  and  has  passed,  I,  with- 
out hesitUioo,  reassert,  in  the  face  of  my  country,  the  principle, 
which,  in  defence  of  the  fishing  liberties  of  this  nation,  was,  at  my 
suggestion,  asserted  by  the  American  plenipotentiaries  at  Ghent. 

I  deeri!  this  reassertion  of  it  the  more  important,  because,  by  the 
publication  at  this  time  of  Mr.  Russell's  letter,  that  plenipotentiary 
has  not  only  disclaimed  all  his  share  in  the  first  assertion  of  it,  but 
has  brought  to  bear  all  the  faculties  of  his  mind  against  it,  while  the 
American  side  of  the  argument,  and  the  reasons  by  which  it  has 
been  supported  against  arguments  coinciding  much  with  those  of 
his  letter,  but  advanced  by  British  reasoners,  are  not  before  the 
public.  The  principle  is  yet  important  to  great  interests,  and  to 
the  future  welfare  of  this  country. 

When  first  suggested,  it  obtained  the  unanimous  assent  of  the 
American  mission.     In  their  note  of  10th  November,  1814,  to  the 
British  plenipotentiaries,  which  accompanied  their  first  projet  of  a 
treaty,  they  said,  "  in  answer  to  the  declaration  made  by  the  Bri- 
"  tish  plenipotentiaries  respecting  the  fisheries,  the  undersigned, 
••  referring  to  what  passed  in  the  conference  of  the  9th  August,  can 
"  only  sfate,  that  they  are  not  authorized  to  bring  into  discussion 
"  any  of  the  rights  or  liberties  which  the  United  States  have  here- 
•'  tofore  enjoyed  in  relation  thereto.    From  their  nature,  and  from 
•'  the  peculiar  character  of  the  treaty  of  1783,  by  which  they  were 
"recognised,  no  further  stipulation  has  been  deemed  necessary  by 
*'  the  government  of  the  United  States,  to  entitle  them  to  the  full 
"  enjoyment  of  all  of  them."     This  paragraph  was  drawn  up,  and 
proposed  to  the  mission  by  the  member  with  whom  Mr.  Russel! 
coocurre(i  in  objecting  to  the  proposal  of  an  article  confirmative  of 
the  fishing  liberties  and  navigation  of  the  Mississippi,  and  as  a  sub- 
stitute foi:  it.    The  mission  unanimously  accepted  it :  and  the  fish- 
ing liberties  being  thus  secured  from  surrender,  no  article  relating 
to  them  c»r  to  the  Mississippi  was  inserted  in  the  projet  sent  to  the 
British  mission. 

But  one  of  the  objects  of  the  negotiation  was  to  settle  the  bound- 
ary between  the  United  States  and  the  British  dominions,  from  the 
northweist  corner  of  the  Lake  of  the  Woods  westward.  That 
boundary,  by  the  treaty  of  1783,  had  been  stipulated  to  be,  "  from 
•'  the  most  northwestern  point  of  the  Lake  of  the  Woods  on  a  due 
•♦  west  course  to  the  river  Mississippi ;  and  thence,  down  the  mid- 


fl9 

die  of  the  Missigsippi,  to  the  thirty-first  desree  of  north  ]»tih.AM  » 
while,  by  the  .'ghth  article  of  the  same  treatrirhad  hpVn  ./•  ^  C 
3d  that  '*  tha  navigation  of  the  river  Mi«sS^  ?^^^^^^ 
;;  the  ocean  should  forever  remain  free  and  o^n  o7he  subS  of 
"  Great  Britain  and  the  citizens  of  the  United  States  '»        ^ 

The  right  of  Great  Britain  and  of  the  United  States,  at  the  tim*. 
of  the   reaty  of  1783,  to  make  this  stipulation  with  regard  to  th! 
ZSr^'  '^'  Mississippi,  might  be.\.nd  afterwards^va,,''    e'. 
tioned  by  Spsin,  then  a  oossessor  also  of  territories  nnrn7hl^ 
nver,  and  indeed  of  both  its  banks.  IromrmoTth  oTb^LrTa" 
t.  ude  than    hat  thus   stipulated  as   the   boundary  of  Jhe   Un  ted 
States.     But,  as.  between   Great  Britain  and  the  United  St^tl, 
there  could,  at  the  time  of  the  conclusion  of  the  trLtv  ot^i7ft'f  S 
no  possible  question  of  the  right  of  both  to  make IVs  ipufata 
the  boundary  line  .tself  being  in  substance  a  concession  of  t^erri torr 
to  the  river,  and  down  its  middle  to  latitude  31,  which  Great  ErtS 
was  undoubtedly  competent  to  make,  and  the  United  Satestor^ 
ceive.   Now,  the  United  States  having  received  the  cession  Ld  ihl 
boundary    with  the  right  to  navigate  the  riverwrtheeles^ 
condition  that  the  navigation  of  the  river  should  forever  remafn 

fo'tLT    '^n"  ''  ""'^"^  '"^J^^*^'  «"^^  ^'"^'"g  expressly  as'enteS 
to  that  condition,  without  considering  it  as  infringing  upon  anv  rtbl 
of  Spam  ;  they  could  not,  consistently  wita  good  faith  Cacaumnl 
afterwards  the  right  of  Spain,  allege  thut  this  acquis  tbnabUved 
tat™   tTp  5'  «»^''f^°"«^  the  prior  engagemen?  with  Sreat  Bri 
tain.     Ihere  is,  indeed,  in  Mr  Russell's  letter  a  hi.«ifntmJ^.» 
ment  to  that  effect;  the  odious  character  of  whic\' S^^^^^^ 
ve,  ed  by  its  subtlety.    The  United  States  had  alwavs  iHsh<tprn« 

rjJhlf    ^  c    1783,  and  had  obtained  the  acknowledgment  of  that 
r  f.n  ^["'"SP«.n  herself,  many  years  before  they  acquired  her  ter 
ntorial  right  by  the  purchase  of  Louisiana.    With  what  front  then 
could  an  American  negotiator  have  said,  after  the  latter  period  ?o 
a  British  minister  :-You  have  no  right  to  the  LvS'^n  nf  ih 
Mississippi ;  for  although,  on  receiving  fro,^  you  a  part'o  the  river" 
we  expressly  stipulated  that  you  should  forever  eK  Tr  ght  o  it5 
navigation  yet  that  engagement  was  a  fraud  upon  the  rights  of 
Spam  ;  and  although,  long  before  we  had  acquired  these  S  of 
Spam  she  had  acknowledged  our  right  to  navigate  the  r  ver^founl 
ed  upon  this  very  stipulation  of  which  you  now  claim  the  benefit 
yet  I  will  now  not  acknowledge  your  right  founded  ontlTS 
stipulation.     Spam,  no  party  to  the  compact  between  you  and  me 
after  controverting  it  as  infringing  upon  her  rights,  finally  acceded 

Bu't  w;"t""'  TP  k''''""  *"  "''  ^'  ^^^V'^^^^e  with  thSe  rights. 
But  we,  who  made  the  compact  with  you,  having  now  acouirpd  Ihl 

adverse  rightsof  Spain,  wilf  not  allow^u  the  bLeficiTuse  of  mir 
own  compact.     We  first  swindled  and  then  bullied  Sp^fn  out  of  her 
rights,  by  this  eighth  article  of  the  treaty  of  1783  :  and  now  hav 
ing  acquired  ourselves  those  rights,  we  Jlead  the^  for  hoSgour 
engagement  with  you  for  a  dead  letter,  "w'uing  our 


100 

Thin,  and  nothing  more  or  less  than  this,  is  the  nubstance  of  Mr. 
Rosseirs  argument  to  show,  that  perhaps  the  Uniied  States  were, 
by  the  acquisition  of  Louisiana,  absolved  from  the  obligation  of  the 
eighth  article  of  the  treaty  of  1783,  even  before  the  war  of  1812. 

But,  says  Mr.  Russell,  the  treaty  of  17R3  was  made,  under  a  be- 
Iief  of  both  pitrties,  that  it  would  leave  Great  Britain  with  a  portion 
of  territory  upon  the  Mississippi,  and  i/icrc/'ore  entitled  to  claim  the 
right  of  navigating  the  river.  But  the  boundary  hne  of  the  treaty 
of  1783,  was  a  line  from  the  north  westernmost  point  of  the  Lake  of 
4he  Woods,  due  west  <o  the  Mississippi.  And  after  the  treaty  of 
!l783,  but  before  the  war  of  1812,  it  had  been  found  that  a  line  due 
,'Hre|t,from  the  northwest  corner  of  the  Lake  of  the  Woods,  did  not 
•trike  the  Mississippi.  Therefore,  continues  Mr.  Russell,  Great 
^Britain  coulri  claim  no  territorial  right  to  the  navigation  of  the  ri- 
ver ;  and  therefore  had  no  longer  any  claim  to  the  benetit  of  the 
jeighth  article  of  the  treaty  of  1783, 

To  this  it  may  be  replied  :  First,  that  the  British  claim  of  right 
to  navigate  the  Mississippi,  was  not  founded  solely  on  the  territory 
which  it  was  believed  they  would  retain  upon  that  river,  by  the 
boundary  west  from  the  Lake  of  the  Woods.  The  eighth  article 
of  the  treaty  of  1783,  was  a  separate  and  distinct  article,  stipulat- 
ing the  rig.it  of  both  nations  to  navigate  the  river,  without  any  re- 
ference to  boundary  or  to  territory.  But  the  boundary,  the  ter- 
jritory,and  the  right  to  navigate  the  river,  were  ail,  in  that  treaty, 
cessions  from  Great  Britain  to  the  United  States.  And,  had  it  even 
been  the  intention  of  both  parties,  that  Britain  should  cede  the  whole 
of  her  territories  on  the  Mississippi,  it  was  yet  competent  to  her  to 
reserve  the  right  of  navigating  the  river  for  her  subjects,  in  common 
with  the  people  of  the  United  States,  and  competent  for  the  United 
States  to  accept  the  cession,  subject  to  that  reserviition.  They  did 
80,  by  the  eighth  article  of  the  treaty.  And  in  tins  point  of  view, 
the  British  right  of  navigating  the  river,  within  the  American  ter- 
ritory, was  precisely  similar  to  the  American  liberty  of  fishing 
within  the  British  territorial  jurisdiction,  reserved  by  the  third  ar- 
ticle of  the  same  treaty. 

But,  secondly,  the  discovery  that  a  line  due  west,  from  the  north- 
westernmost  corner  of  the  Lake  of  the  Woods,  would  not  strike 
the  Mississippi,  had  not  deprived  Great  Britain  of  all  claim  to  terri- 
tory upon  that  river,  at  the  time  of  the  negotiation  at  Ghent.  The 
line  described  in  the  treaty  was,  from  the  northwesternmost  point 
of  the  Lake  of  the  Woods,  "  on  a  due  west  course  to  the  river  JMts- 
sissippi."  When  it  was  found  that  the  line  due  west  did  not  touch 
the  Mississij  pi,  this  boundary  was  annulled  by  the  fact.  It  re- 
mained an  unsettled  boundary,  to  be  adjusted  by  anew  agreement. 
For  this  adjustment,  the  moral  obligation  of  the  parties  was  to  adopt 
such  aline  as  should  appro>:iraate  as  near  as  possible  to  the  inten- 
tions of  both  parties  in  agreeing  upon  the  line  for  which  it  was  to 
be  substituted.  For  ascertaining  this  line,  if  the  United  States 
were  entitled  to  the  benetit  of  the  words  "  on  a  due  west  course," 


« 


101 

Britain  wa»  «qunlly  enUtled  to  the  benefit  «f  *i. 

Before  the  ,v.r  of  181«,  three  aboruVe  ««emn»   57?"*  «^°"«d,. 
he  part.8,  to  adjust  this  boundaW     Th«  &    ^"^  ***"  "'"'e  by 
1 794,  Khen  it  was  already  coStored    £^/     ?  ''^  *"«  ^-^^^^  of 
the  line  due  west  from  the  lakriouM  nn.  ^  .    ""^  ««certained,  that 
By  the  fourth  article  of  the  treaUon  i?l  "l'*"*'*  **•*  M»«wippi 
■urvey  should  be  made  to  ^certain  \Zf  '\"'^  "«''**^  ^»>«t  •  Joint 
result  of  that  survey  it  sho„M  o.        "'?  ^'"'^ '  *"*'  *»'•*.  if,  on  the 
imersec.  the  river  ^theoSa  TZ'' '''"'  *»««  "^^^  line  woul3  not 
••  tiation,to  regulate  thrboinHr'^  P'^'f**'  "  by  amicable  nej^' 
;;  justice  and  Sll  co„ve„Te„c7  an^d'  'i"„  !,'lV""^-'  -ccordin/S 
••  of  the  treaty  of  1783/'     ThTs    ""v^v  '^''^°''""*y  *<»  the  intl  t 
•econd  attempt  to  adjust  the  linT  w^.  k  ^.k'"  "*^«''  "'"J*-     Th« 
the  12th  of  May,  ms  hv  Mr    Ki^'  ^^ i^f  convention  signed  o* 
fifth  article  of  ih  ch^^^f^-  reci.i^.  tL'"''  '""^  ««'^'^e«bufy  ;  thS 
nhne  drawn  due  wes  from  the  Lake  of  ^w"'?''*''''^*^'  ''^''^^' 

""»>;>.•.  This  coCenUrn  oorC LTT  ^''"T  /'^*  "^''-  ^-- 
tempt  at  adjustment  had  been  madSh^  "i-"^*^'  ^^^  ^^ird  rt- 
»nd  Mr.  Piikney,  of  J  806  and  1807  ».  "I^e^*'''"'^"  o^ Mr.  Monroe 
proposed  and  "greedT  X  the  l'-""  ^^  -"-""'''^ ''*** ''*«'^ 
northwestern  point  of  the  Lake  of  ^f-^*^     '  ^  ^^'^  ™°'' 

of  latitude,  and  from  that  point  dJelprt'  ^°  ^^!  '^^'^  ?«"*"«' 
parallel,  ^./ar  as  therTspectivl  ZJ  '  *'*'"^5°'^  ^^''^^  ^^e  said 
And  with  tllat  article  Z^^U^ZZr  TfolCJ'^*  ^"-^'-• 

"goods  and  effects  of  his  Sstv'ssL  ''t-  **'««  ««'PP'.  with  the 
"  the  benefit  of  the  naviluon  of  th»  r^  "^•'*'''' '°  °'"*^«''  <«  «»Joy 
"  the  treaty  ofpeacerbSween  h  s  m./  7'''^?''*''^  ^°  ^hem  by 
;;  and  also  ly  iSe  thi;d  aS^of'rheTeS^f  att''""^'  '^^*'' 
"  and  navigation,  of  1794      AnH  if  i.  7  fu^       ^"'^y*  commerce, 

;;  jesty's  «ubjects%hali;L  ike  ma  Ver  and'a";:!.'!'''  '""'l  ""''  °"'' 
•'  access  to  all  the  waters  and  rrrpraSi^     •  !  ^'  ^""^''  ^ave  free 

«  the  river  Mississippi "nd  1  /nr  "      "^^       "       ''*''^'*"  ''*'*  °'' 
This  negotiation  W.S  sn«nini  ^  navigation  of  the  said  river." 

ni«try.  andVSrtarrStsl'jd'^  ' teh^V^  ^""^^^  "'^ 
vations  upon  the  two  articles  ronf«S"  •  .'  ^^'^  fo"owing  obser- 
;on  to  Messrs.  MonJoeldPinkn^v  of aotb   '^^^'"  ^'' «' 

J  3  ■, 


102 


M  liuippi,  i<  not  to  be  itllowcd  to  Fritiah  Bnbjects,  with  their  goorii 
*'  or  t«nert«,  unleM  micli  nrticles  shall  hHve  piii^l  hII  tUv  diitifi,  and 
"  be  within  all  the  cimtom  hoiDte  regulatiunit,  ap()licable  to  goods 
'•  and  effocis  of  citi/enii  of  the  United  Statee.  An  nccen  throirgh 
•|  the  territory  of  the  United  States  to  the  waters  ^nnnin3^  into  the 
'•  western  lide  of  the  Missisjiippi,  is  under  no  modi ticationw hater- 
**  er  to  be  stipulated  to  British  subjects." 

SiKTh  then  tVHS  the  stiite  of  ihinKS  in  relntion  to  this  interest  m 
question,  at  the  time  when  the  war  of  lOIit  'orokc  out  j  and  at  the 
oegotiation  of  Uhent,  the  same  question  of  boundary  ngain  occurred 
for  iKljintment.  The  right  of  the  British  to  ii  1,'ne  from  the  Lake 
ftf  the  Woods  to  the  Missi$$ippi  had  never  been  renounced  :  and, 
•t  the  last  negotiation  between  the  parties,  four  years  after  the 
United  8tate«i  had  acquired  Louisiana,  and  with  it  all  the  Spanish 
rights  upon  the  MisxiMsippi,  the  British  government,  in  assenting 
to  take  the  49th  parallel  of  latitude,  as  a  substitute  for  the  line  to 
the  Mi$timppi,  had  expressly  re-stipulated  for  the  free  navigation 
of  the  river,  and  free  access,  to  it  from  our  territories  ;  to  both  of 
which  Messrs.  Monroe  and  Pinkuey  had  been  explicitly  authorized 
(o  Jiccede. 

Under  this  state  of  things,  it  had  never  been  admitted  by  the  Bri- 
tish, nor  could  we  maintain  against  them  by  argument,  even  that 
the  Mississippi  river  was  witbia  our  exclusive  jurisdiction  :  for  so 
long  ati  they  had  a  right  by  treaty  to  a  line  of  boundary  to  that  ri- 
ver, and  consequently  to  territory  upon  it,  they  also  had  jurisdic- 
tion upon  it ;  nor,  consequently,  could  the  instructions  of  16th 
April,  1813,  hud  they  even  been  still  in  full  force,  have  restricted 
the  American  commissioners  from  making  or  receiving  a  proposi- 
tion, for  continuing  to  the  British  the  right  of  navigating  the  river, 
which  they  had  enjoyed,  without  ever  using  it,  from  the  time  of 
the  treaty  of  1783,  when  the  United  Slates  had  received,  by  cession 
from  them,  the  right  of  enjoying  it  jointly  with  them. 

Bearing  in  mind  this  state  of  things,  we  are  also  to  remember, 
that,  in  the  conference  of  19th  August,  1814,  and  in  the  letter  of 
that  d»te,  from  the  British  to  the  American  plenipotentiaries,  (iS«e 
WaWs  State  Papers,  vol.  IX.  pp.  334  and  338,)  they  bad  claimed  a 
new  northwestern  boundary  Ihie  from  Lake  Superior  to  the  Missis- 
eippi,  and  the  free  navigation  of  that  river.  1  o  this  the  American 
commiHsioners  had  answered  on  the  24th  of  August,  1814:  The 
undersigned  perceive  that  the  British  goveriment  "  propose,  wlth- 
"  out  purpose  specilically  allen;ed,  to  draw  the  boundary  line  west- 
"  ward,  not  from  the  Lake  of  the  Woods,  fl»  it  now  m,  but  from 
*•  Lake  Superior:"  and  they  objected  to  it,  as  demanding  a  cessiOD 
of  territory. 

The  British  plenipotentiaries,  on  the  4th  September,  1814,  re- 
plied : 

"  As  the  necessity  for  fixing  some  boundary  fi/r  the  northwestern 

**  frontier  has  been  mutually  acknowledged,  a  proposal  for  a  discus- 

'  sion  on  that  subject  cannot  be  considered  a&  «  demand  for  a  ces> 


103 


'  tjon  of  Urritory,  unlfM  the  Unitad  r,tatei 
thiit  tfiero  m  no  limit  to  th^-r  te 


■M  preparej  to  iw(«rt 
nut  ilirection,  Hod  that. 


itories . 

••  P»n  of  tli«  treaty  of  1783  wasfm.nZl  Vk '.'""  '^"'«^'>  «»>«» 

;;  no  boundary  w.u%verjhc„    .    ntst'olbk^  """  "'^''"°»^''-^da« 

"  Araerico  |.leui™a.„li„rk'.f~3°°  ,„  '"""''«";»"''  "'•'tile 
"  «ry  Iron,  the  Jke  of    e  W™^)^  "  ?i*'°J'''""."''''K«  >h«  bound. 

recur  to  the  treaty  of  1783  w  th  r  rn?-!.  "  correspondence 

fii"  f9rce.  a.  an  appeal  for  either  in  Ln  .onT^r  /  * '  •*  '^  *^»''  J'^*'" 
predion  in  the  above  Ameri  an  „ite  M^iil  n '^l^'l"""-     ''^^  «• 
»tnow  i,r  the  referete  oThetriU-lI^  .0^^^^^^^ 
error  in  the  treaty  of  1783  and  thlil     u-  *'^®  g«ograuh  cal 

rangement  of  1 80r(  he  nh^rtest  line  frf'T'?  I'  ^T''*'  '^^  ^r' 
to  the  Mi«.i„ippi,)Voth  acCtt  tt'e  ;:  of'  m'^t^.'^r'?' 
of  all  proposition  and  all  aru'uinenr Vn!f  „    F       '^^  *"  **"«  ''»«"' 

-r, .../,  „,.,,  „.„„„  xr.i;e™irp^:"ffi;^„  tr„:: 

J.. heir  .0..  of  2,.c  October,  ,8.4,  .he  Britiah  com„Usi.„o„ 

te  eipect,  from  .he  di"c„s,"oalhkh  ^hi.      "!"''"'^''>  ""  leJ 
Jergone,  .h„.  .he  nor.hrrrotl','',';  "''r.'he'Lt""'/  T 

NiX°;s,ttrtVrrc^.:';i:^';,::;^-™ 

note  which  accompanied  it,  to  meet  the  nnh^  /^^^  '"''•'  "'  *'''' 
the  part  of  the  British  government  that  h  T.  tw.ce  given  oo 
grant,  without  equivalenl  the  1  b"  Iv  of  H  hF  ^'^,"°»  J°^«»d  to 
iu.sdiction.  the^unte^U  J;l;Xer;S^^ 


t« 


(( 


lOfi 


lid,  itifAnniDf;  them  that  the  American  go? ernment  did  not  contider 
the  firihiug  liberties  as  forfeited  by  the  war,  and  that  they  would  re- 
main in  full  force  without  needing  any  new  grant  to  confirm  them. 
At  tbis  stage  of  the  negotiation,  therefore,  the  American  plenipo- 
tentir'ries  did  actually  pursue  the  first  of  those  three  other  ways  of 
yrocesding,  which  Mr.  Russell,  in  the  postscript  to  ^he  original  of 
bis  letter  of  11th  February,  1815,  says  they  might  uave  taken,  and 
to  which  he  adds  that  he  would  have  assented,  namely,  to  contend 
for  the  continuance  of  the  fishing  privilege,  notwithstanding  the 
^ar,  without  saying  any  thing  about  the  navigation  of  the  Missise 
sippi.  It  cannot  but  be  surprising  to  find  Mr.  Russell,  within  three 
Dkonths  afler  these  events,  writing  privately  to  the  Secretary  of 
State,  stating  thi9  as  a  course  other  than  that  which  we  had  pur- 
sued, and  that  he  would  have  assented  toitif  we  had  ;  when  it  was 
the  very  course  that  we  did  pursue,  and  he  had  assented  to  it.  We 
^d  contend,  not  for  the  indestructibiliiy,  as  Mr.  Russell  terms  it,  of 
the  treaty  of  1783,  but  that,  from  its  peculiar  character,  it  was  not 
•brogated  by  the  mere  occurrence  of  war.  We  never  maintained 
that  the  treaty  C/f  1783  was  indestructible,  or  imperishable,  but  that 
the  rights,  libe  t.es,  and  boundaries,  acknowledged  by  it  as  belong- 
ing  to  us,  were  not  abrogated  by  mere  war.  We  never  doubted, 
fi>r  example,  that  we  might  be, compelled  to  stipulate  a  new  bound- 
ary ;  but  that  would  have  been,  not  as  a  consequence  of  mere  war, 
but  the  effect  of  conquest,  resulting  from  war.  The  difference  be- 
tween our  principle  and  that  of  the  British  was,  that  they,  consider- 
ing the  rights  acknowledged  as  belonging  to  us  by  the  treaty,  as 
mere  grants,  held  them  as  annulled  by  wa?  alone  ;  while  we,  vie\^- 
ing  them  as  rights  existing  before  the  treaty,  and  only  acknowledg- 
ed by  it,  could  not  admit  them  to  be  forfeited  without  our  own  as* 
gent.  Britain  might  have  recovered  them  by  conquest ;  but  that 
could  not  be  consummated  without  cur  acquiescence,  tacit  or  ex- 
pressed. Mr.  Russell,  who  absented  to  our  principle,  and  asserted 
it  with  us,  now  says  he  always  thought  the  British  principle  was  the 
true  one.  If  the  American  mission,  at  that  trying  time,  had  acted 
tipon  it,  be  never  would  have  prophesied  the  convention  of  October, 
1818. 

The  eighth  article  of  the  projet  of  a  treaty,  sent  by  the  Ameri- 
can commissioners  on  the  1 0th  of  November,  offered  the  bounda- 
1^  which  had  been  proposed  in  1807,  a  line  north  or  south  to  lati- 
tude 49,  and  westward,  on  that  parallel,  as  far  as  the  territories  of 
the  two  countries  extended  ;  and  said  nothing  about  the  Mississip- 
pi. But  when,  on  the  26th  of  November,  the  British  plenipoten- 
tiaries returned  the  projet,  vvith  their  proposed  amendments,  they 
accepted  the  49th  parallel,  westward,  from  the  Lalce  of  the  Woods, 
for  the  boundary,  but  with  the  following  addition  to  the  article  : 
**  And  it  is  further  agreed,  the  subjects  of  his  Britannic  majesty 
«*  shall  at  ail  times  h.ive  access,  from  his  Britannic  majesty'?  terri- 
*'  tories,  by  land  or  inland  navigation,  into  the  aforesaid  territories 
"  of  the  United  States  to  the  river  Mississippi,  with  their  go9<^. 


"  atS^h  "!**  T'^^'^i'*'/"'*  *^*  *»»  BritMBJc  majesty's  subieck 
flha^J  haveand  enjoy  the  free  navigation  of  the  Jaid^er »' 

Jr  r  A  "'^'  **"'.  ^"'"'"'^  **'^*'  «"he  conference  ofutD«««« 
ber  the  American  plenipotentiariefl  proposed  to  strike  nnJ  ii.  *k 
words,  and  to  substitute  the  amendment  Stained  a1^he^*t^,^Jr!J 
tha   conference,  already  communicated  to  Conn-iss     H- ^^^^ 
that^the  .elation  which  Mr.  RusselJ,  within  th^e  month.  I?" 
wards,  so  singularly  professes  not  to  perceve  between  tte«l-^'* 

but'for;  J'. '' r  ""'^""'PP'  "^^'««^'°' '  "ot  oiSy  X  fit  arc's? 
but  forced  itseif  upon  the  American  plenipotentiar:e8      tUvK  J 

cidlly  instructed  to  do.  by  asserting  that  the  treatv  of  1 783  h«/S!l 
been  abrogated  ipso/acta  by  the  war.     Two  day    before  Je't^ 
this  counter  projet,  they  had  received  from  W^hinln  a  fre  hk 
Jtrucfon,  expressly  authorizing  them  to  conclude  a  tre^v  on  a." 

ine  treaty  ot  1783  is  yet  in  force,  you  have  the  rjght  of  naviMtii* 
ta^f;  T''';r»' "'  have  the  fishing  rights  and'  lilirtTel  S 
FkI    •  K.    ;  "'  ■yP^^'^y'  the  treaty  is  nbrogated,  how  can  vou  cS 

Jtipulated  admission  of  both,  o^  llUZ^ln^rZT  WeMT 
you  ,n  app  .cation  the  choice  of  our  principle  or  of  your  own' 

The  Biitish  commissioners  took  the  proposal  for  referrc'e  to 
tbe,r  government,  by  whom  it  was  immediately  rejected  But  t 
«how  how  anxious  they  were  to  obtain  from  us  {he Turret der  of  «  r 

fn.  h!  M  •"''  '"*'  ^^^^  ^''^^P'y  *»»«y  ^^  ^'^d  the  righUf  navi^N 
ing  the  Mississippi,  as  one  of  the  last  eipedients  of  negotiation    £  J 

tZff'^T  ^'•"^'^  «g''««'ng  that,  after  the  peacf,  Se  "L  del 
would  further  negotiate  "respecting  the  terms,  condi  ions  a^nd  re! 
« gulations,  under  which  the  inhabitants  of  he  UnS  sJate?-' 
'ZLThTK  ^'^^^^''-g^^rties.  ^^inconsideraToLffZr 
«  I?rri  J.\     ^  W^^  "P^"  '^^tween  his  majesty  and  tbeS 

fir?*!  ?  foresaid  ;    and  a  reciprocal  stipulation  with  regard  to  the 
British  nght  of  navigating  the  Mississippi.     As  the  partiS  .ftir  h! 
peace  would  have  been  just  as  <  .mpeLnt  further  rnejott^^^ 
these  poin  8,  if  so  disposed,  without  this  article  as  with  if  s  oolv 

IJ  tL  i  •  ^-  ''f'^'-t.es,  andon  the  British  side,  of  the  right  to  nlvil 
gate  the  Mississippi ;  with  thii^  difference,  that  we  should  have  sw- 


Mnacred,  in  direct  vioInUon  of  oar  inatructions,  u  reul,  ezlritiiic. 
practical  liberty,  which,  even  in  the  warof  our  Independence,  had 
wen  deemed  of  the  higheat  importance,  and  atita  close  had  been, 
with  infinite  difficulty,  secured  ;  a  liberty,  of  which  that  portion  of 
Ifte  Union,  whom  it  immediately  concerns,  hud  been,  from  the  time 
01  the  treaty  of  1783,  in  the  constant,  real,  and  useful  pouession  : 
While  the  British  would  have  surrendered  absolutely  nothing—ji 
right  which,  by  inferenco  from  their  own  principle,  was  abroaated 
by  the  war  ;  a  right  which,  under  the  treaty  of  1783,  they  had  en- 
joyed for  thirty  years,  without  ever  using  it,  and  which,  in  all  human 
probability,  never  would  have  been  of  more  beneficial  use  to  the 
British  nation,  than  would  be  to  the  people  of  the  United  Stales  the 
ttght^of  navigating  the  Bridgewater  canal,  or  the  Danube. 

There  was  certainly  an  inconsistency  on  the  part  of  the  British 
tovernment,  la  claiming  a  right  to  navijjate  the  Mississippi,  while 
•Merting  that  the  treaty  of  1783  was  abrogated  by  the  war  :  and 
when  pressed  by  us  U  say  on  what  princiide  they  claimed  it  without 
offering  for  it  an  equivalent,  they  said  the  equivalent  was,  their  ac- 
ceptance of  the  49th  parallel  of  latitude  for  the  northwestern  boun- 

f^^o!!"      L    ,        ''"®'  ^^  "^^^^'^  ^''*'y  *^*^''«  entitled  by  the  treaty 
ot  1783,  ifo  the  Mmtssippi     As  they  gave  up  the  line  to  the  river, 
tBey  4aid  they  had  a  right  to  reserve  its  navigation,  and  access  to 
It  lor  that  purpose.   They  hiid  said  the  same  thing  to  Messrs.  Mon- 
roe and  Piokneyin  1807;  and  the  principle  had  been  assented 
S-M^L    *"?•  r"^  '**®  subsequent  sanction  of  President  Jefferson, 
sun  the  whole  argument  leaned  upon  the  continuing  validity  of  the 
treaty  ol  1783;  lor  the  boundary  line,  as  well  as  the  Mississippi  na- 
vigation, was  null  and  void,  if  that  treaty  Wiis  abrogated.     We  re- 
plied  to  them,  that,  although  we  were  willing  lo  agree  to  the  49th 
parallel  of  atitude  for  the  boundary,  and  thought  it  of  mutual  in. 
terest  that  the  line  should  be  tixe*!,  we  were  yet  not  tenacious  of 
It ;  we  could  not  agree  to  their  article  of  mutual  surrender,  with  u 
pledge  of  future  negotiation  ;  b^t  we  would  consent  to  omit  the 
boundary  article  itself,  and  leave  the  whole  subject  for  future  ad- 
justment.    And  to  this  they  finally  agreed. 

The  advantage  of  this  to  iis  was,  that  we  carae^out  of  the  war. 
without  having  surrendered  the  fishing  liberties,  as  they  had  been 
emoyed  before,  and  stipulated  at  the  treaty  of  1783.  We  were 
still  tree  to  maintain,  and  ^ve  did,  after  the  conclusion  of  the  peace, 
effectively  maintain,  the  existence  of  the  right,  no^withstandinK  the 
intervening  war.  The  British  government  still  insisted  that  the 
treaty  ol  1733  was  abrogated  by  the  war  ;  but  when  called  upon  to 
show,  why  then  iney  treated  the  United  States  m  an  independent 
nation,  and  why  in  the  treaty  of  Ghent  they  had  agreed  to  four 
■everal  commissions  to  ascertain  the  boundaries,  ♦'according  to  tlie 
true  intent  and  meaning  of  that  same  treaty  of  J  783,"  they  finally 
answered,  that  they  considered  our  Independe.ice,  and  the  boun'  ■ 
daries.  as  existing  facts,  like  those  of  other  nations,  without  refer- 
ence to  their  origin.    This  left  nothing  but  a  dispute  about  words ; 


-<). 


107 


Mr  «re  applied  the 


"  "...^-.  which  the"coEd?d 'wil'h  ItrS't'n^"'*!''"  ?^;*^ 

«ent  of  Independence  nnd  to  the  boundSS     ThVv  ^r^^i'^S 
the  whole  treaty  of  1783  as  n  British  erant     W.  ''•y  5,«""?«r«l 
.     d  British  acknoiledgement.  They  never  .iLTh!  "^'•«'^«''«<^  *  aa 
attempted  by  Mr   Russell   HpIwoL  t.^.    ®  "'<^« '*'«<'"C»ion. 

part  of  the  treatv,  or  Sted  M'-^ "," /"'"^  ""^  impcrmhabli 
could  not.  «nd  SVr  vlTstK  he?ln  I .  "'^  "eht-  ^ hich  they 
consent.  By  theif  pr  SleThPvS.l  '  '^  ''**'""^  *^'"'°"*  ««' 
ami  when  thiy  notifiK'^nt'i  r^h?  f  lu"''*.''*''"'"*^  *•»«  '^hole  : 
grant..  ^.J^^^^^ttnJ^^^^^^^  -ntend  to 

Hon,  but  that  they  meant  to    oaJe  us  he  riJ^rnf  Z*^^ 

...r./«.«/,a«,-,.  a'nd  theSlp"!    .>t?^^^^^^  T^*  •'"~ 

what  that  writer  verv  P«nii,.:»i,  '       .'  ^^^"^  *°  ^a^e  ■«•» 

which  could  nofbeacLS^  "**'  .!^"*  }^'y  ^"«  ri«»»f 

not  be  lost  by  non  useT    He  ouih?  T'^f '^^  "«'''''  ''^'''^  «^°"W 
•o  less  clearly  iTvs  down    thar.thn     ?  *°  '"''^^  '"*"'  ''*'«»  Vattel 
to  itself  a  (ish^r/upon  i  J  own  c    Xtd  wth""  T^  «PP.''opHaf 
tion,  yet,  "if  it  has  once  arkr>wredL  ?h.  Jl  *"  '^  °\"  J""'"^'«- 
«  nations  to  come  and  fish  thprpf?        *'''."""**°  "K***  "<' other 
'  -  from  it ;    it  his    eft  th  t  tiZrl         *  ""^  '""?*^''  "^'"*'«  t^em 
"  least  with  respect  to  thol^whn^        k*'  f*^""'''^*  ^'"^^'^O".  «t 
And  he  cites  trhtn^Hr  ' :n'';h:  c^t  "f  KT  °k''^'* 
common  to  them  with  other  nations   bec.ri  thpv  ?  !f'^'  f  '*®"''f 
.pnntedittothemselves,/romM/w^^^^^^^      they  had  not  appro- 

blender  thread  by  which  the  nibunrh-  *°  *^!'''^"'«"oe  upon  the- 
were  in  fact  suspLded  at   he  Negotiation  JfTh""/*^  '^^  ^'^'"^ 
precise  as  our  instruction    werf  in    ?n  J'     ^'•'"^*  «"«» 

Kussell  had  disclosed  at  GhpnrtK*^  -^  *"'"'•«"''«'•  them,  if  Mr. 
8ion  of  his  letter  if  he  h-.d   n  h,/   «  P'"'""'  ?°^^^  '»  either  yer- 

.yn..intainedt^;:!;:irrof^;L:rrr^^^^^^^^^ 

ways  enjoyed  Sout    sT  withlfl     ''r?,^'V^*^'"'^  ^''^y  »'^'l  «'- 

ioL;  iii  had  so  t    :;iirdt^^^^^^^^^ 

1783  was  totally  and  aSet X^^^^^  the  treaty  of 

sothoroushly  inverted  the  rpnl  ,h»1  fr  vl  ^  *"*  '^'"' '  •^*'«  ^ad 

it  in  such  glowing  colom  TI  Jl^Z   '^f  .'^""''•'^"'  ""'^  P»'"ted 

the  West  foa  « 'allot  r..-^^:^^^^^ 

that  perseverance  which  i.  ihe  l..,t  „f  .:  ,  °.  ."" '  ''•     "' 

M<l  g'ven  Ihem  nolice  that  he^ho'l  iTrTnSri,?.  ,"'"*"''■ 

th.  ».nd,o.,i„„  „f  M™ei.„.d  hi,  ->,o;iV"rdiff:„'"  f,;";;::c! 


•ad,  .  -Of •ill, if  another  mind  could  have  I>e«n  found  in  (lie  mitv 
Mon,  capable  of  concurring  with  him  in  thone  views,  it  would  at 
IsMt  hu        equircd  of  the  majority  an  inflexibility  of  fortitude, 
beyond  isiat  of  any  trial  by  which  they  w  ere  visited,  to  hare  per- 
•eyered  in  their  proposal.    Hud  they  concurred  with  him  in  his 
opinion  of  the  total  abrogation  of  the  treaty  of  1783,  by  the  mora 
Act  of  the  war,  the  lishories  in  the  Gulf  of  St.  Lawrence,  on  the 
coaiit  of  Labrador,  and  to  an  Indefmite  extent  from  the  Island  of 
Newfoundland,  were  lost  to  the  United  Btates  forever,  or  at  least 
(ill  the  indif^ant  energy  of  the  nation  should  hove  recovered  br 
conquest,  the  rights  thus  surrendered  to  usurpation.     In  notifying 
to  OS  that  the  British  government  intended  not  to  renew  the  grant 
of  the  fisheries  within  British  jurisdiction,  th^y  had  not  said  what 
extent  they  meant  to  give  to  these  terms.     They  had  said  they  did 
not  mean  to  extend  it  to  the  right  of  the  fisheries,  generally  ori» 
the  open  seat,  eiyoyed  by  all  other  nationfj.     {See  Letter  of  tht  Amt^ 
riean  Ommmioners  to  the  Secretary  of  State  of  t2lhJlvimt   18l4 
WaU's  State  Papers,  vol.  9,  p.  .321.)  But  there  was  not  wantina  hisi 
torlcal  ex^ition  of  what  Great  Britain  undeistood  by  her  exclu- 
sive jurisdiction  as  applied  to  these  fisheries.     In  the  12th  article 
of  the  treaty  of  Utrecht,  by  which  Nova  Scotia  or  Acadia  had  been 
ceded  by  France  to  Great  Britain,  the  cession  had  been  made  ••  in 
•^inch  ample  manner  and  form,  that  the  subjects  of  the  most 
"Christian  King  shall  hereaftci*  be  excluded  from  all  kind  of  fish- 
"  ing  in  the  said  seas,  bays,  and  other  places  on  the  coasts  of  Nove 
•♦  Scotia  ;  that  is  to  say,  on  those  which  lie  towards  the  east,  within 
•♦  THIRTY  LEAGUES,  beginning  from  the  island  commonly  called 
"  Sable,  inclusively,  and   iience  along  towards  the  southwest." 

By  the  thirteenth  article  of  the  same  treiity,  French  subjects 
were  excluded  from  fishing  on  any  other  part  of  the  coast  of  the 
Island  of  Newfoundland,  then  from  Ca[)e  Bonavista  northward  and 
then  westward  to  Point  Riche.  By  the  fifteenth  article  of  the  treaty 
of  Utrecht,  between  Great  Britain  and  Spain,  certain  rights  offish' 
ing  at  the  Island  of  Newfoundlaml,  had  been  reserved  to  the  Gui- 
puscoans,  and  other  subjects  of  Spain  ;  but  in  the  eighteenth  article 
of  the  treaty  of  peace  between  Great  Britain  and  Spain,  of  1733 
his  Catholic  majesty  had  desisted,  "as  well  for  himself  as  for  hij 
successors,  fro      ill  pretension  which  he  might  have  formed  in  fa- 
vour of  the  Guipuscoans  and  other  his  subjects,  to  the  right  of 
fishing  IN  THE  NEIGHBOURHOOD  of  the  Island  of  Newfoundland." 
In  these  several  cases,  it  is  apparent  that  Great  Britain  had  assert- 
ed and  maintained  an  exclusive  and  proprietary  jurisdiction  over 
the  whole  fishing  grounds  of  the  Grand  Bank,  as  well  as  on  the 
coast  of  North  America,  and  in  the  Gulf  of  St.  Lawrence.     Nor 
are  we  without  subsequent  indications  of  what  she  would  have 
considered  as  her  exclusive  jurisdiction,  if  a  majority  of  the  Ame- 
rican commission  at  Ghent  had  been  uh  ready  as  Mr.  Russell  de- 
clares himself  to  have  been,  to  subscribe  to  her  doctrine,  that  all 
our  fishing  liberties  bad  lost,  by  the  war,  every  vestige  of  right. 


^f»  Id  the  aaiBmer  of 


109 


rvr,  ID  the  •QBomer  of  is i a  tu 
nXni  '^!'»"»ciation  of  the  United  St^tT  '  r  ' '  ''J'  •ccepting  thi 

i  he  second  article  nFthu  = 

and  tbe  valour  ol  the  We-*  "  •  "^        ««Mell,  m  mv  *^tr,Z  -.^  -r.    * 
connected 


'  jeaioufliea,  but  to  tbe  «f,n„i*^*^      "*"**'»<>  the  pre 

**^ithoat  yielding  at  JirMr  Rn''  'if-  «°''«'  J"S 
e  valour  ol' the  West  "  r  k        ^""ell,  in  my  "truftin  n^ 


♦I,*  •  T  ^^'"  '•'"St  in 
the;m^,f«  of  the  We.t. 


'  ^ave  the 


no 


peirf«cl  aod  nodoabtinftreUaoce,  tbat  to  the  ctear-sigbted  iotelligiince 
of  the  western  county,  the  gorgons,  and  hydras,  and  chimeras  dire, 
«f  Mr.  Russell's  itniigination,  raised  by  incantation  from  the  waten 
« of  the  Mississippi,  will  sink  as  they  rose,  and  be  seen  no  more. 
Without  professing  to  sacrifice  any  of  those  ties  of  duty  and  alle- 
^aoce,  which  bind  me  to  the  interests  of  my  native  State,  I  cannot 
illow  Mr.  Russeirs  claim  to  a  special  ardour  for  the  welfare  of  tho 
West,  to  be  superior  to  my  own,  or  to  that  of  the  deceased,  or  of 
ti>0  living  colleague,  with  whom  I  concurred,  without  mental  re* 
•orvation,  in  the  measure  subscribed  to,  and  denounced  by,  Mr. 
JAiisseHl  We  were  all  the  ministers  of  the  whole  Union ;  and 
Mre  I  am,  that  every  member  of  the  majority  would  have  spurned 
with  equal  disdain  the  idea  of  sacrificing  the  interest  of  any  one 
l^art  of  the  Union  to  tbat  of  any  other,  and  the  uncandid  purpose 
of  awakening  suspicions  at  the  source  of  their  common  autbori-> 
fy  here,  against  the  patriotism  and  integrity  of  any  one  of  his  col- 
leagues. 

I  shall  conclude  with  a  pass'ng  notice  of  the  three  alternatives, 
vrluch  in  the  postscript  to  the  original  of  his  letter  of  1 1th  Februa* 
ry,  18ld,  he  says,  we  might  have  taken,  instead  of  that  which,  a« 
tie  alleges,  we,  against  his  will,  did  do.  We  had,  says  he,  three 
oUl«r  ways  of  proceeding : 

*>  First.  To  contend  for  the  indestructibility  of  the  treaty  of  178S, 
**  thence  inferring  the  continuance  of  the  fishing  privilege,  without 
*(  seyiog  any  thing  about  the  navigation  of  the  Mississippi,  which 
**  would  have  reserved  our  right  of  contesting  this  navigation,  on 
**the  grounds  I  have  mentioned,  specially  applicable  to  it.  Se- 
<*  condly.  To  have  considered  the  treaty  at  an  end,  and  offered  a 
**  reasonable  equivalent,  wherever  it  might  be  found,  for  the  fishing 
"  privilege."  Thirdly,  To  have  made  this  liberty  a  sine  qua  non 
**  of  peace,  as  embraced  by  the  principle  of  status  ante  helium. 

**  To  either  of  these  propositions"  (he  adds,)  "  I  would  have  as- 
"  aented.  But  I  could  not  consent  to  grant  or  revive  the  British 
'<  right  to  the  navigation  of  the  Mississippi." 

He  could  not  consent !  He  did  consent :  see  his  name  subscribed 
to  the  letter  from  the  American  to  the  British  plenipotentiaries  of 
13th  December,  J814— ^p.  44  of  the  message  of  25th  February 

last. 

It  is,  indeed,  painful  to  remark  here,  and  throughout  this  letter 
of  Mr.  Russell,  how  little  solicitude  there  is  discoverable,  to  pre- 
serve even  the  appearance  of  any  coincidence  between  bis  rea& 
sentiments  and  bis  professions  :  half  his  letter  is  an  argument  in 
form  to  prove,  that  the  treaty  of  1783  was  abrogated  by  the  war  ; 
yet,  be  says,  he  would  have  assented  to  contend  for  its  indestruc- 
itbitittf,  so  long  as  it  applied  only  to  the  defence  of  the  fisheries, 
reserving  his  special  grounds  of  objection  to  its  being  applied  to 
the  navigation  of  the  Mississippi.  I  have  shown,  that  the  inde- 
structibility of  the  treaty  of  1783  never  was  asserted  by  any  of  the 
American  commissioners  ;  but,  that  the  principle  tbat  it  bad  not 


ill 

States.  coJlld  ^l  "bri^d  but  Chei  tn'^^^^^^  "'  *•*'*'  ^"•»«» 
first  assumed  in  defence  of  the  fisheS  o^?v  ^^H^'M^^"'  ""^  ** 
any  thing  of  the  Mississippi.  When  LreL^  i^'*'?'"*  ">•"< 
the  navigatioD  of  the  Misslioni  r«m.  ?  fu®'  X^f  '^^^^^^  <<>» 
teotiarietrMr.  Russell^. peJfUjSnrt^hL  P'^^'P^ 

pnnciple,  in  favour  of  ou?  demand  Sf  u  *''l''PP''=«.on  of  oar 
what  were  these  spedal  obJectTon,  J  7ti   V  ^""^  "''S^'*-    B«»« 
'      our  oiro  wrone-tVaud  anK^r        ''«^e  «''°*'"'  **"»*  **»ey  wew 

to  Great  BrUaln.     Mr.  rIL  ,  '  ^e^'di^  T'"'  It^'*'*^''^  ^^f 
at  Ghent,  and.  if  he  bad.  a  Sity  ^f  [ul'^l'^*'  *»••»•  objectioi 

-«red.,.haveheena.hamed^oX^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 

and  offer  forThe  S  hinrp^.vLTi'^n!.'"  *u  "'^  °^  "^  ^»  «"'  «»^ 
.V  might  be  founl^Z  Kr^wn^M  ^^"k''''  ^^^'^^^^n*.  ^herevei 
not  affirm  that  we  bad  auThorUv  t^^'lJl''''^^  ^'^T^  " '  "«  ^"* 
we  had  been  speciaUy  instructed  ««f7^  equivalent  whateyer- 

he  would  have^urre'Hdered  S  rurcSThem  ft'^'"'  "^  S' 
price  again.  purcnaaed  tbem  at  a  reasooaU* 

i.  .1' «'™1e™'?f'"r  •  'Hetv.''h''/»TtHlf  ''»""'^«  "-■««'■ 

Bon  of  peace,  a,  embraced  bX»ri„     1  *"V  ""^  "  '  »"•  T» 

A  sine  ,„;  „„„  for  tte  stahiltram  f'/'l™  f^"  """"^ 

contradicted  by  the  letter  reaHv  wrSn  h  V  "u  ^  »va8  d.^tinctly 

rreu-'e^'cTeS-'frfeHSrH^^^^^^ 

?re5t:b^e-ri;?£-:;Stl%S'^^^^^^^^ 

tbe  duplicate.  The  professions  if  3SL.H  ™  fKravations  ,b 
rity^  talent,  and  J«Jgmerof  ,1  e^tt" '^It^docuf 
IB  the  same  letter,  represented  as  .o  weak  a£i.rJ  .„jf,f  i  '  "' 
1  can,  for  u,y  „wo  part,  „.i.h„  «ce7»«  l;:2.'?;«tT'"t°K 


113 

b«m  eompe1:«a  to  speak  u  in  these  remarks  I  have  done,  of  a  per- 
jon  dwtintiuisl.ecl  by  the  favour  of  his  country,  and  with  whom  I 
had  tieen  Hssoriated  m  a  service  ofijigh  interest  to  this  Union,  bra 
been  nmong  the  most  painful  incidents  of  my  life.    In  the  defence 
ot  myself  and  my  colleagues,  against  impututions  so  groundless  in 
themselves  at  first  so  secretly  set  forth  and  now  so  wantonly  pro- 
mulgaled  before  the  legislative  assembly  of  the  nation,  it  has  beeD 
impossible  entirely  to  separate  the  language  of  self- vindication  from 
that  of  reproach.     With  Mr.  Russell  1  can  also  rejoice  that  the 
propwa!  offered  on  the  1st  of  December,  1814,  was  rejected  by 
the  BriUsh  government,  not  because  1  believe  it  now,  more  than  I 
did  theti,  liable  to  any  of  the  dangers  and  mischiefs  so  glarinff  in 
the  vaticinaUons  of  Mr.  Russell,  but  because  uoth  the  interests  to 
which  It  relates  have  since  been  adjusted  in  a  manner  still  more 
aati!.factory  to  the  United  States.     I  rejoice,  too,  that  this  adjust- 
ment  has  taken  place  before  the  pubiication  of  Mr.  Russell's  letter 
could  have  any  possible  influence  in  defeating  or  retarding  it.  The 
convention  of  aoth  October,  1818,  is  the  refutation  of  all  the  doc- 
trines of  .Mr.  Russell's  letter,  to  which  there  can  be  no  replk     It 
bas  adjusted  the  fishing  interest  upon  the  principle  asserted  by  the 
American  mission  at  Ghent,  but  disclaimed  by  Mr.  Russell.  It  has 
given  us  the  boundary  of  laUtude  49,  from  the  Lake  of  the  Woods 
westward,  and  it  has  proved  the  total  indifference  of  the  British 
government  to  the  right  of  navigating  the  Mississippi,  by  their 
abandonment  of  their  last  claim  to  it,  without  asking  an  equivalent 
for  Its  renunciation. 

With  regard  to  the  magnitude  of  the  fishing  interest  which  was  at 
stake  during  the  negotiation  at  Ghent,  I  believe  the  views  disclosed 
in  Mr.  Kussell  s  letter  as  incorrect  as  the  principles  upon  which  he 
would  have  surrendered  it.    The  notification  of  exclusion  was  from 
all  fisheries  within  exclusive  British  jurisdiction.     I  have  shown 
that,  historically,  Great  Britain 4iad  asserted  and  maintained  exclu- 
sive  proprietary  jurisdiction  over  the  whole.    Had  we  tamely  ac 
quiesced  in  her  principle  of  forfeiture,  without  renunciation,  we 
•hould  soon  have  found  that  her  principle  of  exclusion  embraced 
the  whole.     That  a  citizen  of  Massachuoeltu,  acquainted  with  its 
colonial  hrstory,  with  the  share  that  his  countrymen  had  had  in  the 
conquest  of  a  great  part  of  these   fisheries,  with  the  deep  and 
anxious  interest  in  them  taken  by  France,  by  Spain,  by  Great  Bri- 
tain, for  centuries  before  the  American  revolution ;  acquainted 
with  the  negotiations  of  which  they  had  been  the  knot,  and  the  wars 
ot  which  they  had  been  the  prize,  between  the  three  most  powerful 
maritime  nations  of  modern  Europe ;  acquainted  with  the  profound 
esnsibihty  of  the  whole  American  Union,  during  the  revolutionary 
war,  to  this  interest,  and  with  the  inflexible  energies  by  which  it 
had  been  secured  at  its  close  ;  acquainted  with  the  indissoluble 
links  of  attachment  between  it  and  the  navigation,  the  navy,  the  ma- 
ntime  defence,  the  national  spirit  and  hardy  enterprise  of  this  great 
republic  ;  that  such  a  citiz'^n,  stimulated  to  the  discharge  of  duty  by 


113 

a  freah  inatrocUon  from  hi*  •«-*- 

the  part  of  Great  Britain,  to  demJnd7i  ^^^  "l,  °^  "°  intention.  o5 
tt,  sooner  to  break  off  the  neSion  th      *"^*'''  "^  '«  'urfe^er 

;  annual?  ^eclLill^^^,^^^^^^^^  of  a  feHaKS 

o  me  H.  that  he  ahould  deliberately  si.  3  '^''""«'  "°^  unaccountable 
treaty  was  concluded,  and  S*  to  hul^'""'  *^°  "^"t*^*  "ft"  the 
d.88ertat.on  to  Prove  that  there  whs  „oZ''T?^  "  cold-blooded 
the  pnncple upon  which  he andhis rnll>  absolutely  nothing,  in 
defence,  and  that  be  considered  the  fi.f"*.'\"  ^'"^  '•««*•*'  ^ts  future 
••at  an  end,  without  a  new  Sl«»fn    J'"?''^^'''y  "^  he  entirely 

.  Such  were  not  the  8ent7mer^f        •  "■ ''"  ''*'''^«'-" 
21'jiouen,  atGhent ;  su  h  ^^IV^p^^S^^^  ' 

of  he  wwter  of  theU  remarks    ^He  rS''^  "?*  *^«  -entimenta 
faction,  upon  that  deep  and  ea  ^esf rP^nJfr''  ^^'^  "^'•«'»e  satis- 
ft«ted  at  that  t<me.  by  theexecSLlfn^  ^*"'  '"^'^  •°t«'*e«t  mani- 
States.  ,„  the  positive  and  uoqSlZ»Zt!r't  '^  '^^  ^^^^ 
to  the  comm  88  oners   on  n«  J!!    -^      •  "*^"°"  of  26th  June  lfti4 
theMerie,.     He  rejoic^"  th«t?h   '^^?*'°°  ^^^^^ver  ro  C^ Lit* 
«d  ;  that  the  nation  iS,'';^t';  ^^^  '•^Jjr.r  ippHcitroJ^;: 
ties  unimpaired,  preserved  as  weH  from  .f  "'  •' *  ^'Shts  and  liber- 
aa  from  the  force  of  preponder^dl..       ^*  *'*''"'*^«  of  diplomacy 
•eas ;  and  he  trusts  that  the  hi   o  "^^.^f/ "P°"  ^''^'r  eleiJent.  t?e 
tails,  from  the  instruction  nottos7rrentrT^^^^^^^ '"  «"  '^s  Je! 
elusion  of  the  convention  cf  20th  nM    "">**«»•'".  to  the  con- 
warning  to  the  statesmrn  of 'SL^Untn  ^nT''  "'"  «-«  «oC„ 

-r-ed   by  any^r-i-  li^n  :- J^t^i^^ 
May3,i8S5.  "'^^^  QUINCY  ADAMS, 


114 


I 


THE  TRIPLICATE. 

In  the  Nutionul  firtzrUo,  of  10th  Mny,  1022,  printed  nt  Philadel- 
phia, thero  win  puliliMhotl,  liomlt'd  "Fur  l,fie  Niitiuniil Qnxtitto,"  ■ 
*' Letter  of  JoiiRthun  KuMell,  Kit|.  to  the  Moo.  tho  Secretary  of 
State,  in  relation  to  tho  nt  Kotiiitionii  iit  Ghcint."  It  whm  dated  Parii, 
11th  Fohruiiry,  IUir»,  not  marked  "/ormifo,"  and  in  the  lanH'  im» 
"^•r  WAi  aoconipuniod  \>y  the  following  article,  under  the  editorial 
•ad : 

NEG0Tr\T!0N9  AT  (JIIFNT. 

The  call  made  in  Congrcm  for  a  piirtiruhir  letter  of  Jonathan 
KuRNell,  V.in\.  on  the  lubiHcl  of  tho  noj(oti«tion«  lit  (Jhont,  Iho  mip- 
|>o8od  object  of  that  calf,  and  tho  cxtiaordisiiir^  tcnour  of  the  Pre* 
•ident*«  ronlv  to  it,  have  excitud  a  jjencral  curioftlty  rcKpecting  the 
contents  of  the  document,  about  which  an  air  of  myntery  and  preg. 
nant  importance  wiiii  thua  thrown.     Tho  Pr^aident  Mtated  iii  hii 
mesxnge,  ai  our  rcadcri  will  recolluct,  that  ho  had  found  the  loiter 
•nion«  hix  private  pancm,  marked  "private,"  by  tht;  writer,  who«e 
view  of  hin  own  conduct  and  that  of  hist  collKtiguos  waa  such  ai 
would  demand  from  tho  two  atirvivinft  membura  of  the  Ghent  mis- 
sion, a  reply  containing  their  view  of  tho  trimaactiona  in  (pioHtiun  ; 
which  r«ply,  tipon  the  principloi*  of  equal  juaticq,  ought  to  be  com- 
municated at  the  same  time   to  Con»:rcHs.     The  President  stated, 
•lao,  that  he  had  depoaitcd  the  original  of  tho  letter  in  the  Depart- 
ment  of  State,  with  inatrnctions  to  dolivcr  a  copy  to  any  person  who 
might  be  interested.    0:^[A  copy  has  come  into  our  hands,  for  the 
exnctnoas  of  which  we  can  vouch,  and  which  wo  publish  entire, 
(his  afternoon  \]  and  us  the  House  oJ'  lloprosentatives  has  repeated 
the  call  fer  the  document,  in  terms  that  have  empowered  the  Prc- 
■ident  to  submit  with  it  whatever  ho  pleiiNcd  of  a  relevant  purport, 
we  may  expert  to  be  soon  able  to  lay  before  our  readers,  the  com- 
munication, in  the  nature  of  an  answer,  which  the  Secretary  of 
State  had  expressed  a  desire  to  be  permitted  to  oQ'er. 

Most  persons  will,  we  apprehend,  lind  that  the  ideas  respecting 
the  character  of  the  letter,  which  they  had  been  led  from  what  has 
passed,  to  form,  are  in  a  degree  erroneous.  Mr.  Ku^scll  has  not 
arraigned  the  conduct  or  questioned  iho  motives  of  his  colleagues, 
who  composed  the  majority  oo  the  point  discussed — on  the  contra- 
ry, he  has,  we  observe,  empbiitically  borne  testimony,  towards  the 
end  of  the  letter,  to  their  integrity,  talents,  and  judgment ;  and  his 
purpose  seems  to  have  been,  not  to  prove  that  they  erred,  so  mtich 
tts  to  furnish  a  satisfactory  apology  for  his  b.aving  ditrered  with  them 
in  opinion.  If  he  marked  the  letter  "  private,"  it  is  not  thence  to 
be  inferred  that  he  meant  it  to  remain  scvret  for  them,  or  absolute- 
ly ;  but  merely  that  it  shouhl  not  be  considered  as  a  part  of  the 
public  and  official  record  of  the  negotiations,  or  otherwise  than  his 


116 

of  Ghent.  w„.  not  mndr«rth«rS"o«  nf  M  'M  *"  *''*  '^''••'r 
conwm,«n.c  of  romm.,nlrnti«r,  Ul  I  r„„dfhH,"^  '"»«'  '« 

he  h«.f  no  Hh,.rc  in  ,ho  cnll  for  the  p   v  t^  loflrrl  '  Vl''''  """'"«'•' 

paimge  of,,  ,hort  CKtrnct  of  11  In  IV  Vnm  m    T,  '   ''X  *•"  <o»o»viiig 
'l«"t  .uhnntic,  ,„  Congro,,  r'tlSJ WXh  Jy'''^'  ^''^  '*^«•'• 

lirli(!lB  connriM  im  ihn  lUi.i.i.  .1  .  .  .     """"K  'o  »"•  Brltlih  n  nn  nn»»«.i..i--  _1 


port  -y  opinion,  I  por.uxlo  my««lf  iLeywi"  ,;,?«„,  "r."  '"•"Sclent  ,0  .up- 

roluloi  10  the  article  mf,    one,      ' '■.  '""}' '""  "'"».  »l"cli 

«mh  December.  ■"nT.S'rr  „„i'Tl,e''r,l™  '"  "'""'  «•"»•• 
tongrcM.  "°"S  "•**  l''»I'o««  comniunicoted  to 

K«ti„g  the  Ml.,i«|ppi  5  «  doin^n  I,  Vh^ro„,„"'''''''  ""'^''•'"  'f""  '«£  0?  S 
of  timt  Name  ireaty  of  l7ti'L  «,„        iJ    '    "'"'  *«'f'.i.ted  by  anoihnr  «  .?  , 
colourable  prc.o.te  (br , nVktr  O?"?  T  r"'^''  "•"'  "'««t^St  k.H  '''' 
right  to  thn  fl.l,„He.  ,0  ;.  S,,//;/J"«  '"'^"""^  "-'I  rorbidden  u    fo  .JjioZ 

the  B'itiiih  government.     Wu  rontendeil  th»f  .1  *"'^''. ""«''«  bo  asked  for  it  h» 
coneldero,!  m  one  entire  and  perma" t  cJmnn.r  ""'°'n  '"•"^  "^  l^"^,  mu     bj 

wh    K  .K         »"'lepend.«nt  nation,  and  rontalninV.l  ^.       P''°P'''°'">o  t^nited 
which  the  two  pHrtHofono  cmplrl  had  ,„.S"V      !"'"""'  ""'^  ^ndltio  ".  on 
«ut«  two,  diitinct  and  .eparato  nation,  '""'"""J'  ««'•?•'',  thenceforth  to  con,! 
pan  oHhe  North  American  coVthlT  ho,  Id  rc2 •'"'"!!.  "^  •"-«  treatrtha?." 
die  .on.  the  people  of  the  United  Stat.«  ll,   "'"»'» '""ject  to  theBriti.h  iur  « 
Which  they  had  'ever  before  enj^yoj  'oVi  J'siTr';"^,  ««  '"'""e've.  .j"  hb"r 
to  hT«  "f  •='''''"8«"hupo„\he  ,ho  eV.  nnVihi.  .^"  P"»  °f  «ho  coa««, "nj 
to  by  the  other  cnntra.-ting  p„rfy.     We  .kin. ,      '""fr""""  '""'  •"^«n  a^cJd 
grant,  hut  u  .r,ere  .ec„gn|,ro  ,  of  a  prior^i^r  LTL^^  "''*  "^""3',  thnn  no^„ow 

^.^ « -r,  .„y  „„,,  „„„  „„^  „..  p^  -^'^c::r;:^sz::£^ 


'..j?.,.,-,t . 


116 


W  why  wt  khnnhl  n«t«l  n  n«w  iii|Miliitlon  Air  lit  •n|o*nwnt,  mere  than  *«  mM^ 

r«m«ln«i  In  fore  In  .11  K.  p.,,,,  no.wl.h«.„,lt„;  ih.  war/o^nVw  ,lu7S 
wa.  «.r...«ry  to  -cur.  .o  .h«  .ubjrc.  of  .lr«M  Bru.lo,  .hJ    gl  ' J  «IiJS 

i^c.irrf  r».;:;;:'"  -- '-  "'^ -  «•"  ^'-'  -g  rc.:r  r-t 

.h.d  b..n«r«„.eH  U.  178.1,  tlwy  ,„u..  «.  ,i„|„  .h.  o  «l, ,  oV.h.  lonl.  of  Z 
UnUid  8......  to  th.  Ub«rly  .o  ft.h,  ami  to  dry  and  rur.  flth.  la  oCt     T« 

pl««  both  p.,|„u  b.y«nd  aU  fur.h.r  c«n,ro»«My.  a  nrnjo.';  i?.^"  .   .  li.lj 

o  olfer  0  adml  an  a,.i«l«  confirming  bo.b  rl«hi.,  or,  w«  o.r.nml  ..  |"  .amJ 
.lm^  to  b«  .U«n.  In  .b.  .raa.y  «pj,„  bo.b,  and  .o  l.av«  ou.  al.o«n.h.r  U  a  arllSI 
tl.flMltiK. ha  boundary  fro...  tha  Lak.  of  ili.  Wood*  w.itwartl.  Th.»  S. 
•«»•(<  .0  thi.  laMpr..p«.al  bu.no.  until  .hry  had  propo.ad  an  artlcia  iiSt' 
ing  for  a  fu.uva  nB»o«la.lon  for  an  miUlvnl«ni  to  Im  Riven  by  (JraatKafn  ft.V 
tho  nnviRa.lon  of  tb«  Ml«Ulpp|.  «n,l  by  .hn  Unlt.d  Stat-./for ."  hbJ.v  « t,. 
the  fi.  erle.  wl.bln  UrI.l.b  Jurl.dlc.lon.  ThI.  ar.lalo  wa.  mu^c !  1  J;"^.;  ri- 
■pact  tolt.profti.»a.lob|rct,  ilncaboth  novernmnntu  had  U  In  tb.lr  ik  WV,  wlJhl 
out  I.,  W  neRo.la.a  upi,n  th.i«  .ubjec.  If  ,h.y  p|«.,„d.  We  reUtfld  l?  al- 
though  It.  adoption  would  have  wr.aed  the  bou.ulary  of  the  4Utb  d.trae  of  at  . 
tud.,  wa.,  of  the  Lake  of  ,he  Wnod^  be.  a«,e  I.  would  have  been  «  fb  ^  aia  I 

2;;i;rt'i:.;7nS"  ""''•""•  '"""•  '"-'•^  ••  '^  »»"•  «•»»•""'  "^i"'"" 

For  th(»  more  complet-^  comprehension  of  t!ie  foreiroinir  «»trnct 
nnd  Mr.  Kuanell  a  letter,  wo  copy  the  urticic,  and  two  extract!  rrom 
the  instructions  of  the  Americm  commissioners. 

Arlick  nffkrtibi,  the  ^mritmtojh,  Driti,\  Plmipotmtiariu  at  Ghrnl,  on  /Aa 

Ul  of  Ueffttifter,  1814. 
«« The  inhabitintu  of  the  United  8.ntc8  nhnll  continue  to  enjoy  Iht  Ubtrly  .« 
lake,  dry,  an.l  cure  f.Kli  in  places  within  the  txrlmtve  furiidiclion  of  Great  Rr 
tain,  a»  Mcui-ed  by  .he  former  treaty  of  iKiace ;  and  the  navigation  of  th.  rlv.r 
Ml»«twlppt,  w.tUiu  .he  excIu.ivo  jurl^liciion  of  tlie  United  8tate»,  .hall  r.main 
tH«  and  op..a  to  /A«  «,A,rW»  .j/'  Ortat  HnMn,  in  the  manner  lecur.d  '      W 
treaty  !  and  it  is  further  agreed  jhnt  Ike  *ui,jeH»  of  hit  linlmnic  mqim^j,,ui 
aiallhmcihait  accmjromtitrh  fiiaceatmof^  4,r  wfcr/erf  fo,  that  mrr^^  i 
hflirttanni'^  maJcttf,U  afortsaid  UrrUoriN,  ivftnmainnd  wilhin  thm        ,"  "i 
mUft  V  the  IM-*'  or  the  »r<W.«,  in  the  a/onmid  territones  of  the  United  Stalt^ 
(0  the  rtwr  Musui!>$i*pt,  in  ordtr  lo  mm  IhrbmffU  of  l.;e  naviitation  of  that 
ntrr,  mtkthw  good^,  rffeet*,  atid  mcrehatuti^e,  whose' importntv^  into  the  Mid 
Ms,»hnll  mt  Ite  mtirel),  pr,>hthtte,l,  on  the  payment  of  the  $me  dvtiet  « 
v^Hld  be  pttyahte  on  the  tn^rlation  q/"  the  tame  into  theAtlnntte  portt  ot  th* 
Hid  ittates,  ttitdon  amfomint  mth  the  mml  cuttom-houie  regulation*  " 


lit    ^ 

wHhlh  ih«  limit.  01  ,h.  UnSK;/"r/'U'V'"''"  '"'i'*-  '  '•»•"  "iSl 
E«ir.ct  of  •  |«„r  f,o«  ih«  ,.m,  ,„  ,h,  ,«m.  a«t^  Jun.  UU 


»ur  r.^AMo  ih«  n.h.. !,.  -to  .b.„r„  TuXJI'  "  """!,"»""i, ««  ■««•«( 


b.  mndt.  Should  iri,;:  T«ru"  wiiro/roTl'"""'"'''"  •'""  *"''-*'  •  "i*™ 

b«H.v.  ;,hh  him  b„,b  fh°X '  rtty  S'A^'Vr' IT""  ™^^ 
'nir..n(J  iluit  much  miKbi.f  mi,K?i,    "»»  "«•  »l>rog.tec|  bjt  tb« 

predicted  or  desired  thin  roLlt    J^li  hi  .U.'        •  ^I'T  T^^  '»»^« 
mitted  even  an  error  of  J...i!m    i.       ^®  '^.•""Ppointed.    If  he  com- 

country,  and  whosi^rVaXjardlv'^'''*  '*"'*  '^^'P  '*>^«  ^^ 
tion  ari so f«r  acknow  e7J^    nil*!    -J  ""'^  »'/"'*"  "'  J'»t  '•«fle«^- 
tical  parties  of  the  S  .h»?  S      '"'^  ^  ^''^  °*''«''  ''^  ^^e  poU- 
admit'ted.    AVwhenTe^n,e    B  »>«  ^""X 

.tancesanddetuihof  rlnn,'  t  w  II  Drlh"!?^"  '"•  '»•  ^ircum- 
kno^Iedged  by  candid  mi^^'e  raMo'J^i""'-^^^^^  '" 
piir»Ufidl)ythemaioii(vof»hAV««,J^^    •  .      "'^"  *"*  coune 

Inconsistent  wit^  hTlfe-t  dro^irrh"?""^^  ^''^««'»«'« 

rican  „egoii..tors.  We  hlldr^'  e  .  o^'b^Se  tS"'  ^'"•• 
•lonera  of  the  article  offered  to  tbem  lo  hL  f  ?  ^''*  .<^«T'"- 
but  at  the  same  time  we  think  j/o!?!'!  i .  "  ^°''*""ate  incident, 
question  of  the  P^meSt'wti^':^  t^^^^^^^  '"  ^ 

be  pronouL  -ed  on  the  proposal."  "'^^  ^'^^  ^'"*'  *• 

Jertion  ?roin'!«*^/'  '?r''"'  ^f  '^«  "«'^»"«"  °f  *»»«  copy~th# 
wsertion  from  f^ood  antkorUy,  that  Mr.  Russell  had  had  no  •hJrJ 


tL^*^'"  f  *!l«  calls  of  the  House  of  Representatives  of  17  Jm^ 
1822,  for  the  Ghent  documents,  or  of  19  April,  1822.  for  his  own 
letter,  and  above  all,  the  extract  from  the  instructions  of  16  April 
1813,  which  had  never  before  been  published,  but  of  which  Mr' 
Russell  had  recently  obtained,  from  the  records  of  the  Depart 
ment  of  State,  two  copies,  were  undoubted  indications  that  the 
pubhcation  rame  from  Mr.  Russell.     The  editor  of  the  Gazette 
jiasmdeed  s.  ace  stated,  that  the  editorial  article  was  written  by 
himself;  but  it  was  evidently  written  upon  representations  directly 
or  indirectly  from  x\Ir.  Russell.     The  opinions  expressed  in  the 
editorial  article  were  his  own,  but  the  facts  for  which  he  vouched 
and  the  extract  from  the  cancelled  instructions,  could  have  been 
furnished  him  only  by,  or  at  the  instance  of,  Mr.  Russell. 

The  copy  of  the  letter  was  not  exact,  as  will  be  seen  by  the  fol- 
lowing extracts  from  a  subsiquent  editorial  article  in  the  Natioaal 
Gazette  of  26  May,  1822.  «»"w««i 

"  We  insert,  to-day,  the  reply  of  the  hon.  John  Q,  A^Jams,  Se- 
cretary of  State,  to  Mr.  Russell's  communications  to  the  govern- 
ment respecting  the  negotiations  at  Ghent." 

•'  Upon  the  merits  of  the  main  argnment,  we  do  not  intend,  and 
indeetf  have  not  room,  :o  express  an  opinion  to-day  ;  but  we  may 
remark  at  c  -e,  that  so  far  as  regards  the  proposal  to  allow  the 
Britiah  the  ^e  navigation  of  the  Mississippi,  Mr.  Adams  has  plac- 
ed his  conauct  and  views  Deyond  the  reach  of  calumny  and  misap- 
prehension for  the  future.  It  will  be  seen  that  Mr;  Jefferson  in 
1807,  then  President  of  the  United  States,  expressly  authorized 
Messrs.  Monroe  and  Pmkney,  who  were  negotiating  in  London  to 
accede  to  astipulation  proposed  '^y  the  British  government  for  the 
navigation  of  that  river,  and  access  to  it  from  our  territories  on 
submitting  to  the  duties  and  custom-house  regulations  applicable 
to  goods  and  effects  of  citizens  of  the  United  States. 

"  The  pamphlet  of  documents  prihted  for  Congress  embrace* 
not  only  the  original  letter  of  Mr.  Russell,  as  received  by  Mr.  Mon^ 
roe,  but  the  paper  which  Mr.  Russell  on  the  22d  April  last  left  at 
the  Department  of  State,  as  the  duplicate  of  that,  letter,  and  which 
contains  passages  not  to  be  found  in  the  original.  In  publishing  the 
letter  of  Mr.  Russell,  we  undertook  to  vouch  for  its  exactness  as  a 
copy,  circumstances  having  led  us  fully  to  believe  this  to  be  the 
case.^  On  comparing  it,  however,  with  the  printed  original,  we 
lound  the  tollowmg  variations  in  the  text. 

"  Quotation  from  our  publication  :  '  From  the  year  1783  to  the 

*  commencement  of  the  present  war,  the  actual  advantages  derived 
trom  the  hshmg  privMege  by  the  people  of  the  United  States 

*  were  according  to  the  best  information  that  we  could  obtain  on 
the  subject,  &c      The  text  of  the  original  is-/  can  obtain  on  the 

subject.     Again,  our  printed  text  is,  '  because  by  concedinc  in  tt 

*  (the  proposed  article)  to  Great  Britain  vhe  navigation  of  the  Mis- 
«8iS8ippi,we  directly  violated  our  instrucUons,  and  we  offered' 
&c.  1  be  phrase,  we  directly  violated  our  imtructims,  is  not  in  thL 


110 

tyiu'    '°  *•  Po»t»cript  of  the  letter  io  our  text  it  in  said  *  w« 
had  three  wavs  of  proceedinir  •'  the  tov*  iniAuc      V         *   ^ 

-k-  u        ^®!^®  •  ***  '***  variations  between  the  text  of  th^  lot^..^ 
State*'  duplicate,  deposited  in  the  Department  of 

tbe^jtLTb  tbrN^'fr  "'"'*""'^''»***°*^'"8  *»>'»  publication  of 
purDosranH  th.  .  ?       f  ^"^*'"^'  '^^'"^  ^^^^  t'««  selected  for  the 

with  the  evc/nL^nr  ^^Z^^^^' ,.  The  letter  in  the  (JaJette  was. 
stored     b„Tn"^,?^^^  ''""'' ^'^^  original  letter  entirely 

Srucdons''^^^^^^  ''"^*  ^««  "  we  directly  violated  ouf 

Sio'„^7the  cife^  ^\'  necessarily  cnpecte^  with  the 

panTn/edifonTaS  ^'''^'fj"'  publiahe/as  part  of  the  accom- 
to  hCe  been  vk,lli  .'^J'  **"''"  ^^'"^  ^^e  instructions  alleged 
sell  a„d  heLdreal  a  ^P  A  ^^  wasa/ier  I  had  shown  te  Mr.  Rns- 

wiu,  arparenfalsoTl^t  \r  R  *""?  i:^^"'^*'^  ^^°«^  instructions.  Jt 
prlSwrnsi  f  fo'^'/u  i'-  ^r"  ''"'^'  ''^^^'^^  he  left  Washington, 
wh?nTom  the  PrtiSentrmll'*'^  Philadelphia,  and  at  /time 
House  of  the  ISth  nf  A  i  f  "^^  •"  """'^^^  *°  **>«  <=«»  from  the 
b^c'mmV'iLle^^^^^^^^^  '«^^^^ -"W  npt 

f^rom  the  Boston  Stafesmm  of  27  June,  1822, 
MR.  RUSSEtL'S  REPLY  TO  MR.  ADAMS. 

mu^'iTairlT/hV^^^"^^  ^'S*'^^*  *  received  a  copy  of  the  com. 
rSesenTadvP*  „  l"\r'^f'  ^^  ^^^  Presidenf,7o  the  House 
ISs  of  f  ?  ter V  '  tV;'/  *'f/  T^*'-  J^^  communication 
February   38li  w   ^  •     ^'*.  '^'''""°  ^o""  Pa*""  <>«  ^he  16th  of 

la?t,^and  of  ti  remark'  oi  CTh"*  ""^  ^'"l'' ^  T  ^'''  °^^P"» 
for  nn*«,ith=#V  J-     Vu      ?    ^'^'  Adams  o»  both.     1  say  on  both— 

peaks  o2  of  hu^  '^''  *^  ^•^P*''-^ «''  ^r.  A<lams  to  the  President, 
DenartnS  1  ^^%'^^™"^'^«  P"  the  paper  deposited  by  me  at  the 
SSrapVv  /^^  yet  acioside/able  portion  of  those 

The  messJ^e  "*  ^'^^^  Department  in  1815. 

conLTrs  t£  coLimn.  f'j''^^"^  ^'^^  ^'^^  '^''^  ""•  '"^^e^J'  evidently 
that  Mter  on^v  7/?^  ^''"^  'T''^  °'  ^''  ^^^-ns  to  be  coplined  to 
tba    the  lettelwh  rh  V";!'*'""™  '^^  ^'^'^'^  t^"^''  ^^'^^at  message. 

w^s  s^Drise  1  Jh.!?''  ""^^  ^°  ^"  communicated  to  the  House.  I 
S    LTp  fh^r  T'.r  receiy.ng  the  printed  documents,  to 

£L  elrt pJh  '"  'l!"^  ^^^"^  *^«"«^^^"'-  °»  the  6th,  or.  without 
af  Mav  .h»n  t  i^^  '""'*  '«"'  ^"^  been  communicated  oq  the  7tl| 
•f  May,  ^w  had  been  signjtied  by  that  messa-e. 


iM 


ISO 

wom^eft  if^hT!!?^"*^"  "°  f**.  ^**''  »'*"'«  beJief  that,  at  so  late  • 
be  m!3i  L  -r  T"'  ^°  *^"*'» '"  reference  to  that  message,  wo^ald 
S  from  Pari.  '"'l'\u^**  •'  '"*^"**'  P'«^"*^«  *»»«  '«««r  onlv  rece  v- 
It^  M^^luJ^  ^^'^  corresponding  report  of  the  Secretary  of 
wwks  of  L  iT'^  Ta''''^  <l.m.nisbed  nhen.  on  reading  theV 
Kce  inJ^rn  T'  /  <'"*^<>^«>'«*J  that  they  mainly  owed  their  ex^ 
Sethe  ^«i.  ""15  ■^''  r°  *  PT"'  ""^'^^  •'^^  *>««»  considered  not  to 
Honi  S^' '^"'l^*'  ^'"''«°**  ^*''<^*'  h«d  »'een  obtruded  on  the 

narhliJ^f  """'w°  S^  ^^'^  °^  ^''J^'  the  very  next  day  after  my  de- 
Eui'°"'  ^'"^"'gto'^'  ^  ^"t  to  the  House  of  RepresenStives 

Sr^mo^aT'teltk^^  ^t'  publicaUonof 

least  he  hnH  u^^ua'       •    t^  member  from  Massachusetts,  at 

inJhf  hi  r'^"'**  seem  that  the  evidence  furnished  by  these  facts 
othts  of  ^.1?'!"  '"®'''"/'  «*  '^««*'  t'*  d«ter  him  from  accusTng 
of  the  naUon  r"*°°  Promulgation  before  the  legislative  asse^^ 

for^makbt  C'?'  ''"!'  '^'^^^^^'  ""'Sht  have  been  the  motive 
made  t^e^  cal,  on  Z"?7r'P;'!''''''-  T''^  '^'  S«"tleman  who 
Xhledto  hPtriif  *!.th  of  January,  for  the  correspondence 
not  thp  lil?  ®*/y  °'  ^.^^"*»  "°t  already  made  public,  I  had 

accord  ngly  to  the  DeDnrtm^nt^f  ^A  '**^1"'^^?ed,  and  I  repaired 

mentioned,  should,  with  thi  approbation  of  mJ  L       'k^"'*"^  ^"'^ 
moated.     Mr.  Adams  at  th^t  timT^t  ^    '  ^oame,  be  commu- 

I  had  written  such  a  ettir  tor  .^.hP'''''^  "'^  dissatisfaction  that 

This  is  all  thrpartidpat  in  ihThVL'T'^'f/  °"  '''  ^^"^«"^»- 
with  the  call  of  the  ntho/wy      had,  directly  or  indirectly. 


1«1 

.      IsI^^ATrll' tl^tr^ti'lt  ^«  -«  0^  the 

extract  of  m,  Jetler  of  the  25th  !f  A'  *''''^'r'''y  occasioned  by  the 
tioned.  which  the  fir.  SS  h,d  blflf ^        ^l''*  above  iel 
had  never  communica  ed^XnS   ^    ^^         ^hat  »»«Dber  I 
of  my  letter  written  at  PariV  fo?  »h  tS.'"'  °*S^»''^»e.  the  contents 
other,  any  account  or  copy  jfc^A^  ^^  *^»"«^:  \^^  refused  to 
to  me,  as  I  believed,  for  puWirSn    a  '  ^°'"  "'^'''^^  ^^^^^  ^^^  «PP"ed 
I  uniformly  asaigned^te  recessi  v  in  t "''"?°  *""'  thus  refusing, 
consent  and  approbation  oTthe  cltthnS  ^'P'"'^"'.^^  Jh«  PrevioS 
lar  publication  of  a  letter  written  •  authorities  for  the  regu- 

vice,  to  one  of  those  authorit"       ^^"^  T'*'''^  '»  ^^e  public  sir. 
All  the  participatforwhich  rhrj"^  "I.'"'"*',""  t°  that  service.      . 
DepartmeSTof  S^a  e  in  con^seauli".  '^f'  '""  ^«^'  ^^  '««^«  «t<he 
Z?*/>ar^,«e„^  the  paper  whSff«K«°  «iy/*cflrto«  from  ^to 
cate.     The  simpfe  facts  aJehes^  ^""^^'^^^  ««  «  ^upli- 

April,  a  gentleman  emplored  in  The  d1  !  ^^^^^S  «^' ^he  20th  of 
.meat  my  lodgings  and  SrTd  if  1^1?^°* '^'^  ^^^^e  called  on 

the  letter  which  LdbLnTanedli'^"'^  ^"P''*^«te  of 

communicating  any  thinras  a  dun,?';  I 'nt.mated  a  reluctance  to 
i»ot  be  presented  ae  sucli  L  the^Hn  '  ^u  °^«*'^^«*''  ^^at  it  need 
presented  to  the  Department  Thf^i^-'  ^"l^^^ed  to  ha^e  it  so 
on  that  occasion.      *'"""*'"*•   This.s,  m  substance,  what  wassaid 

wa?°niuhe'relL?\'tfnhe%,^^^^^^^^^^  ''^'^-^-  Adam, 

applied  to  me  for  it  The  woTf  J'^'l>*'^  P""«"«"  ^^o  had 
written  on  it,  in  consequence  of  h^^^.  ^up hcate"  had  indeed  been 
I  gave  no  further  intimation  much  1?"  "  "*  '^°^^  "^^'-^^  '  ^ut 
so.  He  made  no  inquiry  andlmlT  '"^  «««"'•«•'<=«.  that  it  was 
merely,  that  I  left  it  IbiThe  exami„a?bn  o?  M  ""??**  '  °^«^''^«<» 
was  indiiferent  whether  it  wof^nl  •  °^  ^^-  ^^ams ;  and  that  I 
House,  or  not,  as  the  let!  ^cXT"^^^^^^^^  *^«  ^«»  "^^^^e 

I  expressed  the  expectation  that  if  »«'  i5  k  *^  "'*'  '"^  communicated, 
received  it  accordingly  '  "^^"'^  ^^  '^^urned  to  me.    He 

A  few  d.vs  afterwards  I  again  visited  the  Department  of  State. 

observations  exclusivtly  my  own.         "  '"    """"*  *"«  «'«'A  any  details  o, 


12fc 

*iid  was  again  so  unfortanale  as  not  to  find  Mr.  Adams  there.  I 
•aw,  however,  the  gentleman  with  whom  I  had  left  the  paper,  and 

Sri,  ?r'?9  ?'  l^*f  r.'*  '•"u  **??  •''**''^'  "  **'  supposed,  by  mis- 
WKe  m  1822,  be  had  taken  the  liberty  to  correct  it,  by  inserting 

•»  k  iJ  "  "°  objection,  but  repeated  my  expectation,  that  if 
II  sboald  not  be  d  emed  proper  to  use  it  for  the  purpose  for  which 
u  had  been  delivered,  it  wbuld  be  returned  to  me. 

I  made  a  third  visit  to  the  Department  of  State,  on  the  3d  of  May, 
It  I  remember  correctly.  Mr.  Adams  was  then  in  his  office,  and 
in  passing  thither,  I  learned  from  the  gentleman  who  had  received 
the  paper  delivered  by  me  on  the  22d,  that  it  had  undergone  ano- 
•  ther  alteration  m  its  date,  and  that  1816  had  been  made  to  give 
place  to  18 16.  This  last  alteration  was,  it  seems,  found  necessary 
to  make  the  paper  agree  in  date  with  the  letter  received  from  Pa- 
ns, which  had  at  last  been  found  ;  and  thus  to  be  able  to  use  that 
paper,  with  a  better  grace,  as  a  duplicate,  and  to  abuse  it  with  the 
more  confidence  for  its  variation  from  that  letter.  The  corrective 
power,  assumed,  appears  to  have  been  limited  acccordingly. 

Mi.  Adams  soon  spoke  of  the  paper  which  I  hati  left,  on  the  22d. 
and  had  not  proceeded  far  without  complaining  of  its  difference 
from  the  original  which  had  been  found.  This  circumstance  he 
!k**^*u  iV"'"^*'' P'*''*'''"''"''^  offensive.  In  vain  I  represented 
that  the  difference  between  the  two  was  not  material ;  that  neither 
was  personal  or  accusatory;  that  both  were  merely  defensive: 
and  that  I  was  willing  that  either  or  neither  should  be  communicat! 
ed,  as  he  might  judge  proper.  I  soon  perceived  that  it  was  too 
late  to  offer  explanation  with  a  prospect  of  success.  He  was  not  in 
a  humour  to  listen  to  me,  even  with  civility  ;  the  manner  in  which 
lie  treated  the  business,  destroyed,  in  me.  even  a  wish  to  conciliate 
or  appeasa  hira. 

1 J  *IT  ^i^^^^  ^^^^^  ^^''^'  principally  to  show,  that  the  paper  was 
left  a  the  Department  of  State,  not  on  my  own  proper  motion,  but 
that  It  was  left  there  on  the  application,  and  marked  duplicate  at 
the  suggestion  of  a  person  belonging  to  thaf  Department,  and  pos- 

nUoX  '  '""^'^'r^  ^^  ^'-  ^^'""''  ^^'^  «°'  application  was 
altogether  unexpected  by  me,  and  was  made  without  any  previous 
inljmation,  suggestion,  or  encouragement  on  my  part ;  and  had  it 
not  been  made,  that  paper  would  never  have  been  left  at  the  De- 
partment of  State,  nor  in  any  other  manner  presented  to  the  pub- 
lic.    Having  twice  failed  in  my  attempts  to  see  Mr.  Adams,  1  had 

^L^Jr.       '^^''^  °^^.7"S  those  explanations  which  the  case  ap- 
peared to  require,  until  it  was  too  late  to  offer  them. 

I  considered  it  an  act  of  frankness  to  place  the  paper,  when  thus 
applied  for,  whatever  might  be  its  merits  or  defects;  in  the  po^er 
of  the  person  who  might  consider  himself  the  most  liable  to  be  af-  - 
tected  by  its  publication.  In  thi^  act  there  was  certainly  neither 
secrecy  nor  concealment  to  offend  him.  He  had  the  sole  power  to 
pubhsh.t  or  not,  as  he  might  j.,dffe  proper,  and  to  consult  his  own 
teelings  and  interests,  m  forming  fcis  decision.     When  a  private  let. 


1^3 

never  been  intended,  and  to  which  if  „»  k      ?'  ^'"'  ""^'^^  '»  had 
rented  without  my  cU«en       I  cer   inlv'S  d"hJ"  ^'''  '««»  ?'«' 
permitted   to  make  those  correct '0^  ^1        *^-'  **'''*  '    '^«•' 
which  appeared  to  me  to  be  proper  "0  elbfh!/"^^  '°  Possession, 
tageously  before  that  tribunal    Thl  ^  T  «»««  most  advan' 

this  opinion,  as  the  papTr  wa  'no  to  be Th?  '=°°'l*!f  "^'^  «"t«rt«n^d 
previous  examination  Snd  ^0^^^  of  fhVJf  *  "*''^'*'^^  '^'^''««*  'he 
the  views  with  which  it  «,n.  the  adverse  i>arty.  Such  w«rt 

But  he  communrca  5  «;"  "vrreTtfr'^  '°?r''  *^^'-  ^'^^^ 
Hnd   with  it,  he  c>isingenuVus;1:m;tn?caT^^^^^^^  ''''''  «^'' 

to  him,  not  as  the  paper  called  for  E-  P'P®'''  entrusted 

pHssionate  invective  and  intemnl'.^        ^  convenient  vehicle  for 

if  justice,  or  even  decency  1Z;dfm*'r'""' '^^^^^  «»«• 

»«iU,  1  sboulo  have  believed  tZn  .         \  jPresented  no  obstacle, 
of  the  people  of  the  Um,ed  's^t"  ZlT,  ^'''  '^^  Representative. 

cent  to  have  deterred  him  from    ;7udt^ and'  "'  ^T  ^^*"  «"«" 
proceeding.  ™  "^^  ^"°«  and  ^regular  a  course  of 

;>«r;>0H  ««c/  /enor,  with  the  so  callnH  ,  ?^  °^  *?*  •'*°'"  /^««'-°^ 
several  highly  significant  pLsam  ''  H.  **  '**^'  ^'^''^  ^'''^  it  *«* 
a  parallel  extracted  from  t^he  two  DaDp!^  ^u'^Tl  '^  «"  «"»PK 
parallel,  the  contradiction  th«/XE  "^  .1^"*="  <'r«'«  thij 
that  lUid  not  believe,  in  thl  0  her  paper  that' w^  '"'  ^^P^''  ^^'^ 
hy  our  instructions,  at  Ghent  to  off!?!  '»•  ^®  "^^^^  permitted, 
t.on  by  the  British,  of  the  Mi  sisslDi^'s^^^^'r  ^''  "^^  °«^*««- 
parallel  passages    exhibiting  such  TV„  *    a-  *'°'^e^e^  from  th« 

the  2511,  of  Drcember^f  ,he",m,  „„  ''•'"'''i'^,' '"  i""  ''«P»<«''  of 
'aid,  •■  our  iostruclions  h  ,<l  forh  ^i  "■■•.  '"'"'i  "'"'•  "•■«»  'key 

"  Informahon  hat  been  reccivp,)   fVr.^  »«c,  »oi». 

/«/«  «i'e«y*  in  Fra9u:e  have  produced  L,^,  „  ^^'"i"'  *'"«'^''"^  aUention,  that  t/,e 
10  make  it^probable  that  a  JmaZtint  Zfll  7^  f  ^"^"'^  government,  1 
riglu  to  thejisheries,  to  abandon  Jltaal  SX,  ^f'^^Jg^  tomrren^cr  our 
cede  Louisiana  to  Upain.     h  e  caZnii  ,P'"^*'''^  ^"Pe  of  Oood  Hope,  and  to 

trough,  into  cIisc««ion.     If  lU'xll]  on  vo„r  „!"" -'•  •  ^''"'  "^^''  *""«  "»» *>« 

led  on,  yoltr  negotiations  will  cTase.'* 


124 


.The  duplicate  aho  refert  to  the  same  instrnctioni,  and  perfectly 
agrees,  so  far  as  it  does  refer  to  them,  with  the  ioteruretatioa  «f 
them  ID  the  origiDal  letter. 

Tfu  original  letter  says,  The  duplicate  says, 

•♦The  majority  believed  them-  •The  majority  beliered  them- 
selves to  be  permitted  to  offer  a  selves  to  be  permitted,  their  own 
very  explicit  proposition,  with  construrtion  to  the  contrary  not- 
re^rd  to  the  navigation  of  its  ithstanding,  to  offer  a  very  ex- 
pnncipal  river.  I  believed  mitk  plicit  proposition  with  regard  to 
then*  that  we  were  so  permitted,  the  navigation  of  its  principal  ri- 
and  that  we  were  likewise  per-  ver  ;  now  this  offer  I  considered, 
mitted  to  offer  a  proposition  re-  for  the  reasons  just  suggested, 
lative  to  the  fishing  liberty,"  &c.  not  to  be  a  violation  of  the  instruc- 
tions, in  question,"  &c. 

Instead  of  any  contradiction  or  inconsistency,  there  is  here  a 
perfect  accordance  in  the  sense  of  the  two  papers,  in  relation  to 
the  instruction  of  the  25th  of  June. 

I  will  here  observe  that  my  letter,  written  at  Paris,  in  1815,  wat 
as  may  be  readily  ascertained,  confined  to  a  discussion  of  the 
grounds  which  the  majority  assigned  or  suggested,  in  the  despatch 
of  the  26th  of  December,  for  the  offer  of  the  navigation  of  the 
Mississippi  for  the  fishing  privilege.  To  justify  my  own  conduct 
to  my  government,  in  opposing  that  effer,  I  believed  that  it  would 
be  sufficient,  at  the  time,  to  show  why  the  reasons  of  the  majority 
had  not  satisfied  me.  In  preparing  the  paper  which  I  left  at  the 
Department  of  State,  I  believed  it  to  be  proper,  for  the  causes 
already  suggested,  to  assign,  for  my  justification,  an  additional  reason 
which  had  influenced  me  in  the  course  which  1  pursued,  at  the 
time.  The  paper  therefore,  says,  in  speaking  of  the  offer,  "  but 
I  considered  it  to  be  against  the  letter  and  the  spirit  of  our  instruc- 
tion of  the  15th  of  April,  1813."  (6.) 

Mr.  Adams,  in  his  remarks,  admits,  at  least  by  implication,  that 
"  the  letter  and  the  spirit"  of  this  instruction  was,  indeed,  against 
that  offer,  when  he  resorts  for  a  release  trora  the  obligation  of  ob- 
serving it,  to  other  instructions,  of  the  19th  of  October,  1814, 
which,  he  says,  were  received  on  the  24th  of  the  following  Nor* 
authorizing  the  status  ante  bellum,  as  a  basis  of  neg(rtiation.    He 

(ft)  Exlrdct  of  a  letter  of  imtrwtions  from  the  Secretary  or  Stat»,  totheAmeri' 
can  Commissioners,  dated  15th  April,  l8l3. 
«'  The  article  in  the  Treaty  of  1794,  which  allows  British  traders  from  Cana- 
da, and  the  fiTorth  West  Company,  to  carry  on  trade  with  tfie  Indian  tribes,  with- 
in th'.  limits  of  the  United  States,  must  not  be  renewed.  The  pernicious  effects  of 
tills  privilege  have  been  most  sensibly  felt  in  the  present  war,  by  the  influence 
which  it  gave  to  the  traders  over  the  Indians,  whose  whole  force  has  been 
wielded,  by  means  thereof,  against  the  Inhabitants  of  our  western  States  and 
territories.  You  will  avoid  also  any  slipulatim,  that  might  restrain  the  United 
Slates  from  increasing  their  naval  force,  to  any  extent  they  may  thinkproper,  on 
the  Lakes,  held  in  common;  or  excluding  the  British  traders  from  the  naviga- 
tion of  tlie  lakes  and  rivers  exclusively  within  our  own  jurisdiction.'' 


says, 

••If 
!<hall  m 


123 

evidently  means  to  Insinuate  if  not  to  assert  tl,„f   • 
the  basis,  thus  authorized,  the  Americ«„  mi    '  *"  T'''^^'*^'  "^ 
proposition,  relating  to  the  navi^aM^n  of  Jhf  m°".  ^"*="*««d  ^^^ 
fishing  privilege,  on  the  28th  and  29th  of  Nnv  ^T''W  «nd  the 

^^^^^hl^^^  J4«  --  of  the  mission  .a.  „ot 

this  proposition,  nor  did  ani  ^trity  at  tSZ^'' '"  ""^^^''^n  to 

niater.  and  repeld?re"'esT;,    Z^^  -,^'-  British  ., 

'vpuld  communicate  all  the  other  sneHfi.n       '°  •'^^"'  *''''l  they 
"•nary  article  proposed  by  ZlSh7or.T''''T^  ^'^'^  P^e"^ 
been  accepted  by  us)  ofrefinTa  s im  tn^        '""^"^  ''"^'"S  "^ready 
by  both  parties.  ^Th^e  B^ '„  LSr'bv' .h'''''""^^  '^^  P''«J«<^'« 
of  that  month,  declined  complyTg  S  thi     ''  "*''"  *^^  ^'^^  ^Ist 
they  bad  already  by  their  note  of  tl,e^>  st  olT^'k  ^'''^•"g  *»>«' 
cated  to  us  all  the  points  upon  which  the!  u  p  «    T"'*''  communi- 
After  he  receipt  of  this  note    w^  mitT    .?  '"^^ructed  to  insist. 
I'eve,  in  order,  lirst.  to  decide' if  wp  Th    \F^^^''  ^"^'V  '^«y.  I  be- 
complete  project  to  the  B^i  t  i  L'ltrs  wifhTr^  «"  ""^  P'-t.  a 
multaneous  one.  ou  theirs,  and  then  Spm"*  T'^^'^S  «»  «  si- 
to  prepare  and  digest  thi    proiecr'un^M  /l  "'^InfJ^^'i*^*'^  *«  ^o«o. 
when  it  »vas   presented.     DuS'  this  nl     f  ?  °^  November 
question,  after  having  been   rrc^ted Iv  fndth    '^'  Pr^Po^i^ion  in 
was  carried,  a,  a  ;,a?^  of  the  »7S  in  / 1  ^^-^'^"^'''^  discussed, 
•n^'jonty  Mr.  Cla/  ancliy.elf  SJ"  '  tr'JI'™"'''"'  *'^  «  ^arj 
.    After  the  majority  had  thus  TZlxT      }^  "PPo^ed  it. 
just  mentioned  ^n  article  of  the  co    emollT'''"?  '''^  Proposition 
faction  of  the  minoiity  at  this  decSn  7      •  .^'^J^*'  '*^«  '"««'««8- 
declared  that  he  vvotdd      ign   nT  tr'l'^^^^^ 
should  make  a  part,  induced  thrmo'fvn.r;''?  '^V"  «'*'^'« 
raan  who  .s  now  no  more,  to  nl  ,x    ftf  pI^  iTJ'^"''"-ly  the  gentle- 
consent  ta^resent  our  projert V-  Z^^^  adherence  to  it,  and  to 

such  an  JKle  in  the  project  or  -.s  Mr  A  \  ""  ''•l'^'*^'     '"^^ead  of 
a  substitute  for  it,   the  mi.^.-!  V    ■      .  ^''^'"' biinself  avows   as 
Clay   was  i^.rt^d  in  h'    'o  f   ithe'To  Jl  7t''  '^  ^'^  "^" 

That  this  proposition  had  been  X  .ded  on   h'r'^'j 
November,  i.  not  only  to   be  inferrpd  f-      ^^  ^^^   ^^^^  "^      ' 

Ad..  -,s,  just  mentioned!  that  a  J.^vl  /'TK^fu  '^**"'«'  ^^  ^r. 
our  note  of  that  day,  but  is  evorti  v  *^  '  t"''  ^^^»  •"^^^''ted  in 
tracts  of  two  letterJWlnch  I Xes  eVarthl  i^  '^'  folio. inge^? 
can  minister  at  Paris.  ^^'oressed,  at  the  time,  to  the  Ameri- 

The  liist  is  dated  at  Ghent   thp  AiU     e  xt 
says,  '^"^"*'  'he  4th  of  November.  18 14,  and 

jg  y«ct  non.     iha  question 


« 


126 


llhicbmost  perplexes  us  is  the  fisheries,  and  we  bare  not  yet  de< 
cided  on  the  mode  of  proceeding,  in  relation  to  it.  They  have  told 
us  that  the  libeily  of  taking,  drying,  and  curing  fish  within  the  ex« 
elusive  juricdiction  of  Great  Britain,  will  not  be  continued  to  us 
without  an  equivalent ;  we  cannot  relinquish  this  liberty,  and  we 
cannot  offer  territory  ^s  an  equivalent.  Shall  we  then  offer  the 
free  navigation  of  the  Mississippi,  which  they  apparently  suggested 
with  this  view.  I  think  this  will  be  carried  in  the  affirmative,  al- 
though I  have  yery  serious  objections  to  the  measure." 

The  other  letter  was  dated  the  20th  of  November,  1814,  and  say* 
as  follows : — 

"  Without  having  been  deceived  relative  io  the  di. position  of  the 

inajorit^,  on  the  subject  of  the  free  navigation  of  the  Mississippi,  I 

*m  happy  to  inform  you  that  this  disposition  was  not  inflexible,  and 

we  finally  transtnitted  our  project  without  the  article  that  had  at 

first  been  carried"     This  article  was  as  follows  : — 

"  The  right  and  liberty  of  the  people  and  inhabitants  of  the  Unit- 
ed States  to  take,  dry,  and  cure  fish  in  places  within  the  exclusive 
jurisdiction  of  Great  Britain  as  recognised  (and  secured)  by  the 
former  treaty  of  peace ;  and  the  privilege  of  the  navigation  of  the 
Mississippi,  within  the  exclusive  jurisdiction  of  the  United  States, 
(as  secured  to  the  subjecis  of<}reat  Britain  by  the  same  treaty)  are 
hereby  recognised  and  confirmed." 

"  Besides  the  objection  to  such  an  article  ivhich  had  occurred  to 
you,  and  which  had  not  escaped  us,  the  blending  of  the  two  points 
together  and  making  them  mutually  dependent  on  each  other,  which 
was  not  done  in  the  treaty  of  1783,  made  this  article  the  more  ob- 
jectionable." 

From  these  facts  it  is  manifest  that  the  solution  afforded  by  Mr. 
Adams  for  "  the  difference  in  my  mind  between  the  writing  of  the 
original  and  the  duplicate"  is  not  correct.  A  despatch,  received 
on  the  24th  of  November,  could  not  well  have  bad  any  infiuence  on 
my  reasons  for  opposing  a  measu^-e,  previous  to  the  10th  of  that 
month. 

I  have  accused  no  one  of  acting  against  instructions,  but  surely 
I  ought  not  to  ofi'end  if  I  discovered  a  disposition  to  aH^  as  far  at 
least  as  might  ht  expedient,  in  conformity  to  my  own  constructioa 
of  them. 

Mr.  Adams,  when  I  last  saw  him  at  the  Department  of  State, 
showed  me  on  record,  an  instruction  to  the  American  ministers  at 
Ghent,  dated  the  fourth  of  October,  K'l4,  apparently  with  a  view 
to  freshen  my  memory  in  relation  to  our  dispensation  from  the  obli- 
gation of  observing  the  instructions,  which  1  had  alleged  as  a  cause 
for  opposing  the  proposition,  with  respect  to  the  Mississippi.  I 
had  not  proceeded  far,  however,  in  its  perusal,  before  Mr.  Adaaisr 
interrupted  me  by  saying  that  he  believed  it  had  not  been  received 
at  the  time,  adding,  after  a  momentary  pause,  that  he  did  not  know 
if  it  had  ever  been  received.  The  instructions  of  the  4th  of  Octo- 
ber, which  had  never  been  received,  had  just  as  much  in£ueace  pa. 


r«7 

ceived  on  the  24lh  o<\Noveaiber  TSnri!      !\^  *""  '"struction  re. 
although  highly  s«tisfao.or;7it  VrglJed 2^  f.^'' *'''«-• 

considering  what  had  already  been^nn!  h  ^u\  *'°"'''  "«*  "'e". 
•ffect  on  the  future  negott&r  On  the    m^^^^^^^  P'^'^^'^^^' 

had,  in  substance  if  not  in  namPfliriL  *0(h  of  hat  month  w« 
position  to  that  of  the  «  "«oS-/  ^  proposed  that  basis  in  op. 
our  note  to  ti.em  of  tL  dSe  wf '^"'^f  ^  ^  ""''  ^^versaries.    [„ 

the  statu,  ante  T.^  whl?;n,°fth^^^  Thf  '  ? ''^'^"!,P''^'='«-^ 
agree  to  any  other  principle  than  i.r      ""'^^''^'S'^ed  •'  cannot 

territory.  Jd  have  accSn^ly'^^Jeia  L  an\r?^r  '"/°r*'«"  *>^ 
bas.8.     They  ore  willing  even  to  exK  th«      "'^  ^''""^''''  °"  *»>«* 
other  objectH  in  dispuJe  between  thpS     f-  *""**  ^^"*">^^  '«  ^he 
all  the  other  articles  ncluTdln  !k    ^  ""^'°"'  '  ""^^  '»  proposing 

tinctly  understood  hat  he!  «:  *re:dv";r,'''  '""'J  "'^^  '°  '»'  ^'- 
two  countries,  in  respect^LT/  /A^  ^a  •  /'^ V  ^'^''^y  P'a^ing  the 
them  in  the  same  sSey  ZJilli  t*h^"*  "-^  ^^'"^""  *^«^^«en 
.ent  war,  reserving  to  Sp  a;: /t'Sra^T 

British  right  to  nal^rthe' M  ss.?^p'^^^^^^^^^  o^  fhe 

circumstances,  a  new  and  com^/e^e  g^a^ntTo  her  Ir      a  /•''"*'"« 

fishing  liberty,  we  not  onlv  nL.!!^*  .r''  '''  ^"  equivalent  for  the 

from  fhat  on  Xch  they  L^^^  '"''"'"''^  ^^^^^«' 

&c.  y  respectively  stood  in  the  treaty  of  1783  " 

NoTemberleTe  "no/in'.*"'"'"™  °'''™"  ^  ""^  ^S*  "^  «»*  If 

ters  on  our  project  which  fhpv  Kol  V  ^  *"®  British  minis- 
witl».anexplLafory„oteoft£e^26th  'whT''  ''  ««  on  the  27th, 
said  at  the^se  meetings  n  Jelatfon  to  ih^^  ^'''  ^'^''^  ''^^^  ^««" 
the  alteration,  resnectinlif  ml^V  Mississippi,  on  account  of 

«.a..aeMha,  offer  „„;TcL':;;'s:?^::/^1:::^':l~« 


?J- 


<tHtyoflh«  mi^MrtM.  Mr.  Urtyunl,  iit  ri^tMrniiiR  liomn  Ihtm  fh«» 
mi«o  olMho  Hrltiwh  initiiiit^r*,  whr«ir  IIm'  I'liiiUMi'iirit  ol'  ll»o  t«l  nl 
l)n('«M»l)f»«' hml Ikmmi  liohh'n,  voiy  ptijiliiMHy  ilctlnn'il  «n  Mr.  (^Iwy 
niitl  (It  im>,  lH«<li«!4rtlii>lnrli(m  Ihnl  (Iti*  olVc^r' hnti  lirtMi  iiiiiilu  n>Uhmn 

lolhnpi^  liM't*.  to  ii|i)u>ul  lulUe  recollvoUoii  ol'  Mr.  f  Inv  itt  cotuirm. 
•lion  ol'  mv  own,  »'     ' 

'\\\«  rxpluHHiion  whirh  !  h.«¥rt  rIv#»m,  ivill,  f  fni«t.  I.r  ■tifHrlfiii  |.i 
•htuvUmi  tltort>  ooiild  hitvo  Imwi  iiu  (mprn|trji<lv  in  '(Idling,  nt  itnv 
tlnm,  tlio  iiiMnirlimm  ol'  lh»»  imh  of  April,  ini.i,  n^  ruihlihiMff  nii 
ol\j*otlMH,  n(  Inwt  tlili-intt  <l»o  1111.1  tl\\n  of  N.m  ,  fo  u  prnnnMilinii 
to  rovivooriuniiiHio  In  {\vpi\{  linliiin'ini«ht  ti.flir  Tito  miviiriUioti 
of  (ho  jMiMiMipni-  H  rivor  witliin  our  lutt'luniv*'  jiiHiiilii'iioii.  An 
thi«  \xM  tlo>  onl.v  topic,  in  iho  pnpor  IrH  itt  ll»V  I>opiufoi*nnt  ol" 
Slttlo.  whicli  u««  not  in  llio  Icttor  roooivoij  IVoin  Turiv  which  roiiM 
bv  tho  most  sirklik  itnngiotUion,  l>««  utrfliood  into  mmtiurk  upon  othont 
I  n\u\\]  (iiko  hot  liltlo  otMioo  oCiho  rcumUn  olMr.  Ailnnw  In  rplnlloii 
to  (ho  romrtimlor  olihiU  piipor. 

The  opinion  which  I  (horo  «n>nto»to«t,  ron.omiiiK  Iho  rmm  of 
tho  rojorUon  of  our  |n-opo-i(i,)n  l»v  thn  lirllinh  ininiMfrn.  wm  m 
opoMon  (onn«Ml  noon  nfior  (hut  ovont,  lunl  I  iiiontionoil  it  In  novflral 
IH«r«on8,  purticulurly  to  tho  Auioriivni  minii«t<*r  nt  Purln,  nt  orRhonl 
tho  (imo  my  lo(tor  w«»  01  Kton  i«t  (liii(  pliico.  A  "  trn«t  in  Oo.l  noiI 
(ho  vulonr  of  tho  WoM."  for  (ho  ili«tippointmont  of  our  onomion 
wn*  nrttoriUly  mijw:oMo«l,  n(  (ho  timo.  hy  n  ploiiH  imd  pntriotlr  rorn 
flilonco  in  (hoso  who  ooro  uhlo  imd  mlfiht  he  willing  to  «lofonH  ui, 
«mi  cortwinly  htnl  nothiiiR  in  It  of  pivphooy.  It  wnn  ovidontly  more 
i''(y  l»>  tho  iWt  oftho  Knul, 


wino  to  pim  0  n  tniM  thoro  (hitn  ittudnrlhrfv  ..■  mr  mn  m  uio  r.m, 
which  woro  swImnnnR  in  HriliNh  wtitor-.  Nor  wtiN  (hero  nny  wm- 
bhmcn  o(  pnMlicliont.f  (ho  troiity  of  IJilH.  in  n  holiof  timttho  nNhinif 
I>rivilom'  miKht  (hoiv.iftor  ho  t>h(nlnofl,  hy  nojatotitidon,  "  without 
miv  rxmninymitr<fuivaff»(,  whntovor,'*  iit  (hut  holiof  wi\«  not  only 
»u«.-«t»s(o.l  by  (ho  niitnro  of  tho  oio<o,  hut  nu(hori»!o(l  by  tho  explicit 
ortornm.lo  hy  (luMUHish  mihl«(or«<,  on  (ho  loth  of  noromber 
nui.  (bus  to  nojrotiHto  suul  to  «;inn(  (ha(  privllojjo  in  roiwiilorHdoii 
ol  i\j,iir  tnihfllcnt.  Hy  (bo  mo-Hoiv  of  I\rr.  A»l»m»,  mo  extrava- 
^tC«Hf  f!i»ivah»(  in  prorijioly  o<]UhI  to  no  rifuivrtlrnt  nt  nil. 

As  10  (ho  somiinoni  which  I  oxproo^iod  in  frtvour  «»f  (ho  fnhormon 
imnuvlirttolv  intoroMod  in  thiit  pvi\  iloijo,  ii  ih  .•»  fiontimont  Hlwnyn 
«n>l  ovorv  where  foK  hy  mo,  luid  oouM  not  be  oxpronsed  out  of 
timo  or  pluro. 

Thus  much  for  (ho  intportiint  iliflVirncc*.  hrlwoon  tho  privnto 
letter  rocoivoil  from  INuis  .uul  (ho  paper  Id)  nt  (he  Depiirtmont  of 
St.ile,  which  have  alVonhHl  niich  nn  luoplo  (iold  (o  Mr.  Adnms  for 
thedisplny  of  (ho  oiiviahio  iittcihutes  of  his  bend  nnd  bonrt. 

1  shall  now  mukoa  leu  brief  obiierviKions  on  tho  principal  cbnr;rcf» 
which  he  exhibits  ajunst  mo,  of  inconsistency  tmd  misrepresent- 
ation. 

The  principle,  thut  the  treaty  of  1783  w«9  not,  on  nccount  of  itii 


'vh^-'" 


130 

rm\y  l.«.«t. «,.«».  „v..n  (V„m  tim  ..v.m.'l  ..r  Mr  A.I,  ,n«  l.iftllf  ih, 

h«pjr««n.,,h.  uflm..!  I,y  Mr,  (•Ih.v.  „,l,„iuing  IhM  II     ;.  ill" 

•t/'i<<<«/#  t.Mi  |uu|u,«il|„„  wl.irl,  Urn   ,„i„„,if.   |,„,|„,,    ,'1',      tJ 

M   n  t  fim  ly  |„.  coi.n,|,.,,,,I  ...  ..ii  ........io......  nckr.owlfl.lgmm.t  I.vTo 

lu  ion  oMIk,  llnifMl  HuHvh  w.i«.  ..vmnllv,  t|„.  ,,,;  ,lt  \ZZurn 

en  a  .i  Mi.  A.l..«i.»  in.  (he;.. ,,«.  ii.it  vurm.U     I  <lo  not  rrrolliirt 
M..U«|  „l,„  ,„  h,«  «,,,„„,,l„  lottor  of  tho  amh  of  n«ci.mb(»r   ini4 

^i«nt ,  nly  to  prcvt-i.t  tl.o  propositi.,,.,  nlrcn.ly  .|od.l»..l  or.  hv  t  mi 

far  iKMwmo  tho  minority  willi,.«t«  go  io  Jlo.;  i„i*  (h  t  I"!  ' 
l).it  w  HM».v,M- .  W..H  propoMMl  to  m„„;tio„  tho  lrnf,h  riithth/nav  : 
gnto  tho  JVl.M.«Hippi,  th.,y  .ioiforo.ly  r..«i«t,.,|  it.  ^  "  ^' 

..i»M  ;  1"'"*  "'""  '•"""'"',»»»"  "'«  proponMl  cor.nr.i.i..K  !».«  Hriti^h 
rif^li  to  the  ..nv.K.,i,o..  of  tho  MiMiKMippi  ,„„I  o....,  to  tho     hinJ 

l»t  o(  Dcocn  b.3r,  ..t  which  that  proi.os,,!  mn,  at  lei.Kth,  ma<l«  «„,! 
iniMioo  whK.h  SHt.i  that  "  to  «.i.;h  an  article,  Jiich  thru  vimed  a, 

;2Je?to  ::S7' '"  "•""•"'«""' '""' ""  «''j-^'-"'  "nVrvc  jf! 

(r)  1>/.«W  o/«  kU^r  fron.  Athrr,  aatlnHn,  K,u.  to  th.:  Sr.cntary  of  Slair, 
diitrii  'Itiik  DrnmOfr,  J  (1 1 4.  ' 

«•  On  Mr  «<//,>W  of  thr.  Ji,hrri>:»,  wHhm  th,  /vrisdirtion  of  Cheat  nritiiin 

•y  me  I, cat!/  nj  1711.),  w/ur/t  we  imnmrrl,  thr  ritiht  wtm  iwt  al,rnin,hd  iJiU, 

tmmht  two  rounlrus.     U  tho  ,1^1..  ,n.,H.  ho   ro„Hh!nrn,|  n,  nhroSTJ  .1  n 
war,  H-r  vanmt  regain  it  whlum  a..  c.|„ivnl«,„.     /f>  /,arf  Jlrt^lhe  hZ     ! 


••comber,  IHM,  (d)  hn  would  thcro  h.ivo  .etMi  tlnit.  in  f^cl,  awa- 

«o;Jli*.'M 'S^r'/i'/r'!'  r  '*'  ""^  •'^  •:'"*""'  "•*  "•'•'"*  p/'"  v'«"e»./.«r.>*  /.«rf 

l^'iJ^         '^«'W.VM/«.  ,viU,oui  .u.  •,,Mlv«l.n.,,  ,4.  MfrlmloJUH,  aJtl 


.^.r A,  ,/u/jj.,,.^,, „,,,,,, ,^,,,,v, ;-^-,^^  - 


to  ««>  l.r«u«h.  In..,  .Il,r,.„  ,M,,  „„rf  A.rf  „„,  null.,,  1  -,.,|  ,m  /,.  ,„L  a^HiZ^m 

n  Kr«nt  any  ruulvnlmt,  whivfi  rnt^h,  br  ,ukrd  fof  U  hu  ih'  Hr  7^*^  L  IZ./ 

J2".«/  ,r«r  Ar*.wH  /A*  ,..rtr*,«  ,„  ,/^, «« ,;,„n/m.„   r<r„;nM.U»V  M^rK/n  ,rf 
wn/«.«mff  fAr  /rrm* and conU.Moru  o»  .rAi./,  M«  /ir,,  ..or/*  ../•  ow  tmuin  Airf 

rr-miS//^  /  '«' *7  '!'"■  "  "r'  "'  "'"  ^"'"'  '^'"""•^""  co..tln«nt,AoMW 
A?i.  /w  ^^"r"  ""  ""^  «"""'  *"'  "  '"'«•'«  re.  OKnUil,.,  of  n  prior  rU  ". 

l?J^»ZSn    Zf  1'  "^Ay~«H</  .rr  «/%erf  ,/  c»  the  gfvund  upon  which  m 

^iTXiiTL  'i  *"';,"' ,'-'-'«'""V  "«r  ;»ro/Vr/  «/'  « /rrfl/.v,  /Af^  addrd  a  dame 
IZ    •'  '*'.'"^""/«'  *tipulatmfrfor  a  ,if(hl  for  liniMsJjtcttio  navigate  Ihl 

reJil  i    ;'i'"'"'^r/'''''  """'•««'.V«/-178.%  iVom  it.  peculiar  ch.u..ri«r 
wo*  nrr^««rv/oifriirf  to  hembjects  of  Grraf  IhHatn  the  ri^ht  of  n«  ./c'Wi«ir 

fLTofrlt'^   ,^*''  "l^f.i"  '^''^rj*  '•"">'''  mthmth'eAlJrejurJ^' 
ttoH  Of  Gmi/  tintatn.     If  ihei,  „,ked  Ih,  lumKaliou  „f  the  MissUsimn  n.  • 

/Aey  aj4fd  U  became,    had  been granird  m  17();J,  the,y  mml  recogi»u  the  rlaZ 

Tip/flfc  both  points  bfyond  all  future  conirovi.rsy,  a  majority  or  vade- 
termiMd  to  otter  to  «dmit  an  article  rnnr.,mi.,g  botif  rights. 

Sl»t».««oo(S7Jui:«.  lirwuicl.  Key.as.  but  ii  u  h.,e,  »,  ^  „bU,|,ed  ui  lh«  Boilat^ 


131 


,fnritif  only,  unci  not  tho 


,,.'.. .y  only,  unci  not  tho  whole  of  thn  mi.iini.  ^--'  i  i .  .  . 
propo«!.  The  word,  of  th.,  X.rt.h  in  J!  '  *" ""f ''^  *^* 
I-Hl,.r.,  ..  to  place  both  r«in  Itim  MltS^  ?  "'"'  »'^"- 
Mr.  Aciiiinii  munot   that  ilntixiiri.   .....i  «i        """•^""i  K  "oth  right*." 

f..ot  WJ.H.  ho',.0.  ptuivcirSi::'  *""'• "'  '*"**  '••»••  »"«•••«'  -^ 

1  ho  proioool  wa»  n  moro  r«ronl  of  the  fiirt.  «,l.;..k  i.   i 
thoro  n..ul«  h.«l  or  h   I    not  i  "L  P^oof  thut  n  propo.ition 

Doci'tiihor  Htiitcd  that  th<.      ..  1-    "        "«',>'>^o  ocol  of  thi-  J^t  of 

t»,c  A.neHca..  .n!l"i  L" ,'  Ifr  :Xo"' ^Ih'o^' th  ?  ""^^^  »'> 
ply  roc»g„i««,|  that  fact.  Neither  thutLVirolnr.  ?"""'  •'"- 
nuitiu    that  IhiM  pron.ual  h..<l      .  .        1^^'"^"'  o«*  <•>»»  rioto  Inti. 

lOth  of  Novo.nb«r.  to  uS  o  o  m?ki.  'T'!"''"'  '^•'''"'•«  "'• 
"Hually  competent  o  make  11^  ho  uTof  lf/*'"V''''''"'"''  '^«'-« 
or.  tho  14th  of  timt  month  UmtZl  ..  i     '^f *=""''"""•  ""d  to  lay. 

they  had  no  «l'iection"rS'h  it%,^"o^;jite  »'  th  """•  **  '^ '^ 
in  not  oxproM  nir  their  iimetit  Ht  ii ,;»        ">'^«"e'       -The  mmority, 

ing  10  ,ii.  that  "oto!  caZt  b^  V:;;  s    '^ '"'  '•'^"•- 

ently  Riven  thoir  uHnent.  Thov  h  I  ,.»/  T  .  ^°  *""'*'  'nconiUt- 
and  whoro  only  their  opnojl  ^coll  i '"'.''  ''"^.  »"*•'»"'''"'  »*'•«» 
«nd  produced  no  ovil  *'tJ  ha  «  d  .^bed  !'"''  "^»«'''^'»'  ''««ct. 
British  mi„i,torH  by  protc*"., lllt,^^^^^^^^^^^  th» 

hnvo  refused  to  i.W,  «  ZT?-.  fm         ^    V^' ^'*® '""J^^'v,  or  to 
Imvn  produced  ev   ''o  dv        J  .uM  T  *T*'""  *^  *'^"^  »^^  '^ouM 
party  di.,entior.  in  ou   c^ouncilT  and    !'''  '^"''"^^^f '' »»  ^^e  «dver»3 
trous  effect  on  tho  ZZTelol^^^^^^         '^''^  *•"""  '""^  »  «*"«-    ' 
ifolf.  ,uch  »  diHcove  y  "  S  m    v  .;r  n    ••*'''""^».'"  »''«  Propo,«I 
!«r  proposal,  wa,  cli. lldt'enlfe  UrvE' fl/V'  ^''^'^- 
.n  their  estimation,  and  to  induce  them    o'ccent  it      1'"  ^'^P"""'' 
matmg  the  very  evil  which  wo  deSuecl      T  L   '  /'';!!,^'^«»""'- 
nty  was,  in  roHpcct  to  the  othei  .,  h„    ?        .    r  '  '^^  °^  "*«  'n"Jo- 
Mr  Adam,  hmllf  acknow/dgen  h  t^''  i^  woUlv  Y'^'^  '  «•"* 
tahd  without  my  concurrence  «       g„a  uTe        w  i  h  if'"  'f.!'-^ 
opinion  therefore,  it  would  have  been    leTiH  nn7i        •      >  '*'• 
reasons  junt  stated,  it  would  havt  bee    St  Ini^  /"  ""'"*'  ^°''  ^''^ 
"otor.o,.ly  .-efused  my  acquiescc^^rin^ffi^,  "^^'^^^^^^^^^^^ 
J  or  what  IS  called  assem,  cmcurrcu^   .,      -^  ■  "  "'  V'®  '""Jority. 
merely  an  acquiescence  in  that  w  1    '    'o  Ch"*'"  *''«.°«'*"-.  »va. 
Have  long  sii^ce  accounted  to  my    o„sc  ', Le  Id"  "^'^'r^^'"'^  ' 
account  to  my  country.    Bv  the  ,  r  li.  i      '«•    '^  "''*^  cheerfully 
minority.  thoJ.h  tVee'to  dZ  ,    o     "      'l^^^Jr"'"'"'"'^  ''^ 
bound  to  submit  to  them.     If  Mr    \.\1L    i  *^''  majority,  are 

i»  Huh  view  of  the  ri«l  ts  and  du  "tcTf  ""*  "^i:^"  ^'"'  "*• 

present  another  in.tan^fin  whi       w.  JiflW  7'"''^'  *7  ^^'l'  ""'j' 
opinion.  ^        '^''  •''""'^  ''«»«  each  uther  ia 


■V' 


tn 


a ./„*'*•!  °®i  8'?'®  **  *'^«"^  '^o^*'  which  Mr.  Adams  sata  "  it  mt 
did,  &uer  having  said  that  I  concurred  with  Mr.  Clay  in  on 
it.    "I  did  entertain,  and  express  at  Ghent,  the  opinions  dig 


;  may  be  ! 

1  opposing 

in  «„  i^f.      »     J    i.  f-V.  f ''P''«f8  at  Ghent,  the  opinions  disclosed 

I  did  state  them  with  sufficient  precision  and  perspicuity  to  entitle 
M     A  consideration  which  they  might  deserve. 

Mr.  Adams  charges  me  with  ascribing  to  mv  colleagues  opinions 
ivhich  they  never  entertained,  arguments  which  they  never  ad- 
vanced, and  doctrines  which  they  not  only  would  disclaim  with  in- 
dignation,  but  diametrically  opposed  to  those  which  they  did  main* 
tain.    Let  it  be  remember,  i  here  that  my  letter  received  from 

raris  was  con/  led,  in  justifi    -  of  my  conduct,  to  combatinc  the 

opimons,  arguments,  and  d  i»m.,  f  the  majority,  which,  in  the 
despatch  of  the  25th  of  DC  ^.  -  1814  (d)  were  stated  b;  them! 
or  at  least  by  Mr.  Adams,  f.  a«.  ..^spatch  was  drawn  up  by  him. 
Mr.  traHatin,  indeed,  in  his  separate  letter  of  the  same  date  (c) 
does  not  go  to  the  same  extent.  He  merely  states  the  asmmptton 
of  the  peculiarity  of  the  treaty  of  1783.  ^ 

To  support  this  charge,  Mr.  Adams  says  I  impute  to  my  col- 
leagues  an  opinion  that  the  Independence  of  the  United  States  was 
derived  from  the  treaty  of  1 783. 

In  what  part  of  my 'letter  he  iinds  such  an  imputation  I  am  at  a 
loss  to  discover.  In  contending  against  any  peculiarity  of  that  treaty. 
1  simply  said  "  I  could  not  believe  that  the  Independence  of  the 
United  btates  was  derived  from  the  treaty  of  1783."  Without  admit- 
ting such  a  derivation  of  our  Independence,  I  could  not  perceive 
indeed,  any  ground  for  tl-e  peculiarity  ascribed  to  that  treaty  ;  for  a 
mere  recognition  of  a  prior  right  furnished  none     no  other  treaty 
containing  such  recognition  having  been  considered  as  possessing  it 
In  denying  such  a  derivation,  although  fairJy  inferrable  from  the 
doctnne  ot  3Ir.  Adams,  I  charged  no  one  with  believing  in  it  but 
I  removed  the  only  foundation,  as  I  conceived,  on  which  the  doc- 
trine of  Mr.  Adams  could  be  supported  ;  and  now,  in  disclaimin*' 
that  foundation,  unless  he  can  show  a  belter,  he  virtually  renounces 
that  doctrine. 

He  savs,  also,  that  I  impute  to  my  colleagues  "  that  they  rested 
their  claim  to  the  fishing  privilege  on  prescription  ;"   but  he  adds 
that, "  as  the  settlement  of  the  colonies  themselves  had  not  been 
of  time  immemorial,  it  was  not,  and  never  was  pretended  to  be  a 
title  by  prescription."     This  appears  to  have  been  a  recent  dis- 
covery.    In  the  letter  of  the  25th  of  December,  above  mentioned 
It  is  said,  "  this  liberty,  then,"  (1783)  "  no  nsw  grant,  but  a  mere 
recognition  of  a  prior  right  always  enjoyed."     And  again,  in  the 
same  letter,  "  without  adverting  to  thi  ground  of  prior  {..id  imme- 
morial usage,"  &c.     If  I  erroneously  inferred  from  these  passages 
that  a  titb  was  claimed  from  prescription,  my  error,  I  trust,  will 
be  considered  a  venial  one.    Mr.  Adams  can  undoubtedly  explain 
what  he  meant  by  ''  a  prior  right,  always  enjoyed,"  and  by  *•  the 
ground  of  prior  and  immemorial  usage."    He  did  not  mean,  it 


J33 

seenis,  way  thing  like  prescription.    Is  he  quite  sure  thn*  5„  Ai^ 
cussing  th.s  privilege,  while'in  England,  rjeTo     18  S  t; 
never  ^t  up  a  prescriptive  tiUe,  or  a  title  from  imrnemorial  usa^e  ? 

Mr.  Adams  likewise  asserts  that  I  represent «' X  Sr/   >     *^ 
tide,  granting  to  the  British  the  righl  o'f  nan^ati^g^^^^^^^^^ 
as  an  equivalent  for  the  fishing  privilege  in  Britkh  ,^,S5'  ?  '^^  J 

certainlybelieved  that  itmigftLve^fen^ol^^^^^^^^^^^^ 
Its  original  form ;  and  that,  if  so  interpreted,  it  could  hprnS^  I 

r^r  anTo^r  r°"".  '^  ""'1'^  «' ^P'^  combua^c^Tf'  ^t^t 
right,  and  of  that  privilege,  as  they  stood,  independentlv  nf  ^a^u 
other,  m  the  treaty  of  1783.     That  the  nLrrgXn  of  t  Missis 
sippi  was,  at  last,  offered,  not  under  the  princinle  of  Mr    aj 
or  the  .^«^«,  ante  helium,  which  thus  far  were  the  stn^hlft t^n'' 
.9«.W.„/,  sufficiently  appears  from  the  documents; no^^^^^^^^ 
.ng  the  5«6,ey«e„r  intimation  that  -we  considered  "haTofferas 

77^1  iZtTS''  .^"''^'^'  ^^'  ^'^''^t'"'  i°  his  sepa^te  letted 
ot  the  26th  of  December,  says,  "if  the  rio-hf  m„««    *'"*"^*= '«"«r 

^  as  abrogated  by  the  war,  ^e  iof  reg^i^tliZ  t  a^^^e'f 
We  had  none  to  offer  but  the  recognition  of  the  r  g£^t  toTSe 
the  Mississippi,  and  we  offered  it:'  ^         navigate 

Ja  ^tr  T'  •  *'"'*'  ^'^tisfactorily  explained  the  inconsistencies 
and  tissue  oj  murepresentations  with  which  Mr.  Adams  has  w  th 
so  much  dignity  and  propriety,  charged  me.    To  whom  i^c W 

'^:s^:^n:^^-''  --  '^  ^-'^  ^-^^^^^  -  ^-S 

With  regard  to  what  is  considered  so  serious  an  offence,  mv  Hot 
having  shown  my  letter,  written  at  Paris,  to  my  colleagues  aUhe 
time,  will  njerely  observe  that  the  majority  had  dreldv  in  he 
de.putch  of  the  26th  of  December,  (c/) 'given  their  reS  for  he 
affirmative,  without  taking  any  noticed?  the  reasons  on  which  he 
minority  supported  the  negative.  I  believed  it  just,  therefore  to 
account  for  my  conduct,  by  stating  my  objections  to  the  reasons'al! 
S  Y  mLrrr  V"'  ''■  *»»«-  objections  my  letter  waTcot 
?!  1  I  ""P"  /"  the  majority  nothing  which  they  Lad  not 
alleged  for  themselves.  Their  case  was  before  the  Kovernment  on 
tfaeir  own  showing  and  1  did  not  believe  that  there^was  a^v  ob^ 
gation  to  consult  them  on  the  case  of  the  minority.     To  the  only 

Tl     f  1   .  •  ""''.r".  ^r^'"  ^""^  "  ^'•■^^*  •"*«'•««*  i«  that  case,  I  d  d 
show,  at  the  time,  the  letter  written  at  Paris.     I  certainly  wLs  nit 

aware  ot  the  proprienty  or  etinuette  of  communicaVing  aTr  va^^ 
or  separate  letter  to  my  colleagues,  particularly  as  their  priVWor 
separate  letters  had  not  been  communicated  to  me.  ThTthe^ 
did  occasionally  write  such  letters  is  not  only  probable,  but  the  let- 
ter  of  Mr.^Gallatin,  of  the  26th  of  Decembef,  furnishes  Vroonn 
point.  That  letter  of  Mr.  Galiatin  was  uever'shown  to  mrand 
certainlN  aever  felt  myself  aggrieved  because  it  was  not,  although 
he  stated  in  it  the  grounds  iu  which  he  had  acted  as  one  of  the  ma 
joiity. 

1  here  most  solemnly  protest,  as  Mr.  Adams  appears  to  believe 

17  ^ 


J3f 

haClTrLl!'  *'''  "*S- '""^  ^^^  P'""**  ''•"^^^'^3^'  "'»»  nothing  which  ( 
weakn.^-  "i  ^'!i.f"'«^*'y  «••  "-rotely  intended  to  impute  either 
we«kne.g,  absurdity,  or  treachery,  to  the  majority,  ami  to  infer 

distorted  by  passion  and  a  "jealousy  that  discolours  every  ^h^L  - 
oD.^.onlJ'^  **  difference,  and  I  believe,  an  honest  diff/rence^f 
3  if  I  fel  Tm'T  ''"i'?'"f  °^  ""^  colleague,,  on  certain  points 
and  It  I  felt  it  to  be  my  duty  to  act  accord  nj?  to  my  own.  I  certainlJ 

?1I, L'm*«i-'*  1'"*'  **•'  «r "'.'  ''  '"^  «>?--"  '-  those  to  wC 
I  was  immediately  accountable  for  my  conduct.    In  doina  this  I 

accused  no  one-and  if  in  endeavouring  to  prove  that  mv^oJJi  i, 
was  correct,  I  implied  that  the  opinion  of  those  who  dlSed'^from 
me  was  incorrect,  I  did  no  more  towards  them,  than  what!from  the 
defen.W?Kf-^  ^''^•'?'^'  ^"'  inJi«Pe'»«We.  or  than  wh.t  they  in 
Mr  aZ  •  /Pi"'''"'  ""'''*  necessarily  have  done  toward/me" 
Mr.  Adams    indeed,  goes  much  further.    He  appears  to  believe 

ientls'diir'""  ''r'-  ^««?'«-«ted  from  r^Zach.  In  a  co„' 
scientious  difference  of  opinion  between  fallible  men.  who  reason 
J  ut  to  err,  there  can  be  no  just  cause  for  reproach  ;  bufa  pretend- 
«d  difference  of  opinion  between  infallible  men  must  Decessarilv 
mply  wilfu  error  somewhere.  1  do  not  pretend  to  iSiriitv 
and  sincerely  pily  tl.  se  who  dow  It  may  be  less  difficuU  Tsome 
nmds  to  abuse  the  man.  than  to  refute  the  argument  "Lensre 
process  •"'"^Presentation  is.  indeed,  t  shorter  and  eaS 

]7j^'"hv''5*''"'*'r?''-  ^f."'"'  ^"'•'«  doctrine  that  the  treaty  of 
I :;  S^Jff"'°"  f  !*?  PecuJ'unty,  could  not  be  abrogated  by  war 

J^V\^^\7'^^'  ^"^  concerning  the  relative  value  of  thTnavi.' 

gation  of  the  Mississippi  and  the  lishing  privilege. 

I  still  difler  with  him,  in  respect  to  the  consistency  of  his  nrin 

cip^  w,  h  the  proposal  which  was  tirst  decided  on,  imd  after  an^ 

nod  of  hi-ee  weeks,  actually  offered  by  a  majority.  ^^ 

I  shall  probably  continue  to  differ  with  him  on  thes.  points  un- 

ess  he  can  produce  other  and  better  reasons  for  my  JoTvereb, 

than  those  contained  in  his  remarks.  ^  conversion 

knoZ'!"  ''".^t'-ine,  he  appeals  to  a  class  of  treaties  which  are  not 
known  to  exist,  and  to  the  ordeal  of  minds  with  Which  ht.  IZ  no 
made  us  acquainted.     He  relies  on  instinct  when  he  says  "  Isto, 
here  for  a  moment  to  observe  how  imtinctively  both  parties  recur 
to  the  treaty  of  1783.  with  a  consciousness  iL  it  wLyetTZt 

ZthJl  *^  *'!^*"«  privilege,  granted  by  that  treaty,  would 

to  betu  a'n  enS  '  "'"''""'  "^  '^"'^'''*^"''  '^"«  considering  th'aUreaty 
Express  renunciation  or  conquest,  that  is,  consent  on  our  nart 
or  force  on  the  part  of  Great  Britain,  might,  according  to  Mr 
Adams  himself,  abrogate  our  rights  under  the  treaty  of  J  703-  and 

ofmlT  r"^f  ^  '^^  ''•'""'  '^"'^  ^y  ^^''''''>  "«  c'n  l>e  deprived 
of  our  rights  under  any  treaty.    The  peculiarity,  therefore,  for 


136 

Mr 'i2Im."^fn  ""  '?"*'"/^''  V^^  °"  •  ^ery  equivocal  foundation. 
uTcontliTt^'Tu)  ''"«  ."*!'°*'«  to  >»*»«  'J'h«t  convention  doe. 

arisen  on  .h      1^  ""  /  ^*^'  ^"*  '^"*''«  ^'^^  differences  which  had 
R    ♦h  '"'y*^*^'  ^y  »»  grant  entirely  new. 

nnS^»  **'''^' .  "".  *^/"*«"  renunciation  was  necessary,  on  our 
wh?ch  wrT.'"^""  ^^"^  ^'*^'"«  »''"'^"«S«.  the  m;,/ia-«  renunciation 
cieif .«  «  T"  'f^'  was  made  by  the  British,  cannot  be  auffi- 
^rto  Vfr  a7"  *  !,'^^"-/'ght  to  navigate  the  Missigsippi-accord- 
«ng  to  Air.  AdMms,  therefore,  that  right  i^  unimpaired. 

'  nrJvfl!  1"  ^  *""*  "°'  "''"'"S  ^°  renounce  (,r  to  eurrendcF  the  fishing 
Eh  f  K  *!•  '?  '>''<;Onq"e«t,  but  i  was  willing  to  adopt  a  doctrine 
.Ti  iir  ?''''  r^^["  *'*'''*'^«'  t°  ^^  the  true  one  ;  and  which, 
at  t  Jr.  *  "'  *^  ^'''  ^*""'^*  °^t^'«  *^^»>"'8  privilege,  released  us 
the  Lrr^t  *''°™  "r.  r'«  "»'the  Bntish  right  to  navigate 
the  M,fl9„8.pp.,  because  I  believed  those  cvilb  outweighed  that  be- 

All  ♦horlf  "^^^  "°  ''""'^  *'"^«  to  change  this  opinion. 
l»riv  elp  i,  u  ;i,  ?'""'  W' '"  ^'^  *'^'"'"'''«  concerning  Ide  tinhing 
beiZy'      A     "^  "'^  ^'''^  renounced  certain  part«,  which  mfhoui 
toThP  RrT'h  «*^i«  «""'''^«;  l^'d  been  found  very  inconvenient 
the  fiJhin  ^  '  "1''  l^'^l  y  '"^'^''  ^'th  regard  to  the  magnitude  of 
on  whfoTl  '""^^'u^^  ^"^  '^"''^^"^  *°  ^^  ^  '"correct  as  my  principles 
of  S  flV  '"""'^  ^"^'  surrendered  it.    If  I  erred  in  my  estiu  ate 
Adamt  f^r^  ''"r'^'"'  ^^^'^  ''  "°^*>'"S  •"  these  remarks  of  Mr! 
which  ThJr?;?*''?^  '"^  T""'-.  '  «^ted  on  the  best  inlbrm.t.on 
which  I  had  at  the  time.    And,  if  I  erred,  my  error  could  not  de- 
serve  reproach.     I  believe,  however,  that  the  views,  disclosed  in 
ray  letter,  did  notjiinderrate  or  depreciate  that  privilege.  The  most 
authentic  information  which  I  have  until  now  been  a\.le  to  obTZ  > 
i.n!„?"  ;'*';' •^"'*'^'  "''^  °P'"'0»  '^hich  I  then  entertained  in  re- 
«    h  tin  !!.•  :  *""  '?!"1;"?^^  ^y  respectable  citizens  well  acquainted 
♦Ti  rIv  J  — ^- ''"^  ^^"^  ""'  "o  tish  are  now  dried  or  cured  within 
the  British  jurisdiction,  and  that  most,  if  not  all  that  are  taken 
here  are  taken  by  the  few  fishermen  who  have  not  suffident  capT 
tal  to  procure  vessels  of  adequate  size  and  strength  to  fish  on  the 
grand  banks  or  in  the  open  sea  ;  and  that  even  those  few  fishermen 
are  annually  decreasing  in  number. 

With  regard  to  the  British  right  to  navigate  the  Mississippi,  Mr. 
Adams  says  that  it  was  a  mere  phantom-that  they  had  ;.;W  it  fo.^ 
JOyears  without  using  it-thatin  all  human  probability  it  uever  would 
have  been  of  more  beneficial  use  to  the  British  nation  than  would 
be  to  the  people  of  the  United  States  the  right  of  navigating  the 
Bndgewater  (!;anal  or  the  Danube  ;  and  that,  in  surrerrderinVu!  " 
the  British  would  have  surrendered  absolutely  nothing.  AUhough 
all  this  was  not  said  at  Ghent  to  the  same  extent,  yet  Mr^  AdH.ns  cer- 
tainly did  express  there  his  great  contempt  of  the  British  right  to 

«^f.  r1  ir^''^''  *''"'  '''^^''  '  *'»^«  goo'^  'e^^o"  to  believe,  how- 
ever,  that  there  was  not  another  member  of  the  mission  who  en- 


t| 


IKtlrll!.?'"?  .JPi"'-'"i:    ^"*'''  "'•'"''«f  ••"«««»«•«  "lifforently 
mprS„r  all  hlr''^''S"?.'"^        '"  '"'  "^^"  •nfonn.uion  J 

?aT„  Fr"*?""?  worth  obnolutfll)-  nothing.  Mr.  (ialhitin  Hi>nflari 
Llil  I ';;"^'''  ^,*  «qu«l,«l!..«t.  to  tho  ?»hin«nrivieg^  •n; 
Mparate  listur,  nireudy  montioned,  (c)  ho  mivi  •«  f  tho  risrht''  /-rh* 
fi-Hmg  privilege) ..  mu«.  be  ro.,«id«Vi.l  «.  Xog  ted  ,y?  1  war 

•ipp  right,  w«,fnined  ni  much  ng  wo  loit  by  nhroirutinir  the  lUhil 

Pr...lege--«„d  Hn»,  in  n  gfn.ral point  «/ v,L3«v  f  li.t  nS.  nJ 

by  nbrogatmg  both;  thu«  making  the  twoofeuua  v«|  ,i  * 

I  certamly  d.flero.l  very  much  from  Mr.  A^al  in  hi.  estimate 

lenJitoZtr  »t;'r^';--"-^-'  with.rc::«;:'u"or 

unaer  nn  proposal.    I  did  not  appreciate  it  by  the  mere  benenlint 
or  logitima  e  uses  that  might  ba  mode  of  it.    I(h  ilorncri  ro« 
•idered  to  be  derived  from  its  evils-from  tho  «b  isHf  it  «ml  (V^m 
the  permdoai  facility  which  it  would  aHor  I  to    ^{^1  iZlifl^ 

Indians.    If  our  instructions,  af  tho  1 6th  of  Anril     h  I'l  k..    i 

themhnbuant,  of  our  «■<,,<„.«  simcs  and  TciZZ  ^   * 

of  .vidence,  consi.tmg  ,,ri„cip,.llj,  of  ll,o  corro^pll™.  If  IS 
inAmenoR.  <«lal)li,lw,,  Wyond  nil  nilionnl  doubt  lb.  dhV. 

Indians  from  commencing  hostilities.  It  Jas  only  bv  .   t    irtLm 

^^z^  ::c^^'''  --^« "-"  «-^  bVh  tii 

Here  was  surely  evidence  to  prove  the  danger  of  giving  to  Bri. 


V 


*«n a«ei,  prHcticnIly  derived  JVom  tSi  .•  k'I^""'  '°  ""^  grout  «. 
n«vig«te  the  Mi,,i„Lr,  yoY,h  1^  i.*''*  ^'^  «PProacn  nnd  to 
">««"•  or  ttccew,  woull „niub,«  ilvl. .  •  'T'"*  ''?='''"«  tl.o  only 

'  »»|ould  hone  10  find  chnHtv  for  Lv  L.i!  ''"*'  'a  *''''.  ?»'*"'«"•  »*  U 
"Hchu«ett«,  1  bPlievod  thui,,lMr.?^„  T'"^"",  '^.^  "  ^'ti^'O"  of  Mn«. 
7  should  troHt  f«i.Vw  £,;;;'•"''  ^f'y  ''^'^"••••'^  »h«t 
f  ion,  mid  to  do  Hi,/nZ.H  h*/  T^  *'"'®'"  "««»•«"  o'' thft 
'^"itod  Stale.,  it  wnl  my  du  v  t„  ?.  *^"'  ^^•.  .^"  «  '"'""tcr  of  the 
whole.  ""  "'^  ""'J'  ^«  «ct  impurtially  toward,  the  great 

^^o:';:riz^j^^';^^    -t».  ^u  cond«ct.  m 

»v««,  n-  he  nlleged,  iLmZu^Cl      '"»«"<"">".    If  that  liberty 
'tte  thorn,  by  ofleH  «r  „C"r  ■ ,      "*  the  genoral  right,  why  .epa- 

our  inHfniction.,  Include  I  in  S.i  .  ?  ^  "'"  ''''•rty  wa.,  by 
;tn,ction«  forbid  u.  toting  Lt*ilh^■^*''^*^•""  '^'  ""«''«"«  '"- 
I'berty  w„,  an  attribute  7ou  I„?ln  L?  *'""r"'"  '  ^'^  *»>•" 
continuance  on  the  rcrii/LS  of  „?!/'*'""*';  '"^'^  •"^'^  «""  "i 
offer  to  .uMke  it  an  arSS  Ll  i  "^''  ""*'  °*  *''«  "«'9o  time 

no  iuch  pecuIiaJayt'  0  ,..;'[  ''f/hZlT  ^^'^  ^^"'''^« 
an  attribute  of  our  Ind  n,J,lZ«    i       '\  <''«t.I«b«rty  wn«  indeed 

treaty,  but  on  tho.e  S.J  "I'/iJ,  '"^  '^^  •'*  '^«P''"^<'^>  on  no 
Glared  pr«viou.  to  any  S^^J^^  on  wh.ch  it  ha.J  been  de- 
energy  which  dictated  m  d  iTolli.  cd'ih^'^  «•«"••*'"" 

«verth«t  Independence,  ortT,7,h«  j  '' l*'!^'"'"''''"-  ^^'^«n- 
-overeignty,  wllioh  r^cce'Z^^f^^^^^^^^  f  the 

queitioned,  I  tni.t  in  (Jod  ,  u\  ulTi  "'  ' .'""  ^"^  denied  or 
»'ut  of  nil,  thHt  wo  .h..li  1  ♦  *-  ^^l'*'"'''  ""t  of  the  Wc.f  onlv 

to  the  dead  leuer  of  „  trSr':r'  *°  '^  *''''".'"''  <'''  "  vinionarj!?; 
the  nation,  of  the  worlll     ^'    "  """"'^  °"''  '*'«''''"  ""^^  rank  Btmml 

Hpt'rlttrrtrtting  it't"  m  "'"t  ""  ""P^^-'^^^  ^^^  ""PHn. 
'il/erality  of  my  ?e  K'  j.it^rif  Ttdt"'  ""''  '•'^^  J"-^''^*  «!•"' 
e<i  with  the  r/mark.  of  m;   Adam    1  hoT  ''rr'«"«'y  «ntru.t- 
P«per  which  hu.  mainly  .eon  tr.nl  •      ^'^'r'"'^  ^""  »^'th  the 
^'•J  «n  opportunityT«inSntu   v-'oirlr-  "T '  '  "''''"'•>  ^'-ve 
nnd  been  .pared  the  unpleZnt  nTi^  f  "J"^.  ""'"*'  '''fP'n»«tion., 
public.     If  1  have  no? rS  or  1  of    "^.^  "'  •'•""  "I'Pcaling  (o  the 
Adam.,  it  i.  becaSr    l^no  /bIt'lher:V"'^  "cri„,on/ofM,* 
respect  which  I  owe  to     v'elf  and  to  L   "fr'""/'^'  ^^  ''"•'get  the 
jvth  Mr.  Admn.,  the  nor^  hv  wlih  U  i''"'''"*  '  '"S''«t'  «q""lly 
the  virulent  character  7ll^reirk.bu^r?1  ^'  <'*'«t  for 

rea.on  to  reioice  if  m  JiL^!-      !?    •.'  '"^  '"'"'"  ''nve  abundmif 

-.they.i!:ri;:i;'trrv'et^d'tm':r^^ 

n»Bht  hav«  been  Uinastrou*  to  the  conn  fry.       "'""  '"  "''"^'''  "'^^ 

^    JONATHAN  RUSSELL. 


iim 


#V«Hi  thf.  J^ntUmnl  tnttHigtnefr'  «/  Jufy  17,  UfS, 
MH.  ADAMS'  KFJOINDI-JK  TO  Mli.  KUSSELL. 

Mr.  Jotirtth«n  Htm^ell  linving  thought  piopor  to  tr«t»«fer  the  iceno 
of  hM  ftttuok  \i\m\  t\w  oliainrtpi-  hikI  cohdiicl  of  Ium  .:n|lt»nK««P),  thn 
m»\ioi'ily  of  lh«  Into  miBMofi  to  UluuiJ  uihl  n!>|ioi;iiilly  iipoii  mine, 
from  the  IIoiihh  oI'  Reproptnututiveii  ol'tho  Uniteil  States,  whorp  he 
flr»t  volcntroretl  tobiinK  i(  rorwurtl,  to  lltn  nn\V!»|m|iorii,  it  bccomen 
nrooMiiry  for  \»y  Mnuv,  .uul  that  of  mv  colleiigiieK,  iignitiHt  thii 
aiMtiU.  »o  «|)|»l^  to  hilt  iittW  MutoiiKMtU  no  , .  ;>ror.'i»tiitumii  ii  Ipw  of 
thoao  "  rorr*c<Mm»"  whioh,  ttt  (hp  mil  ok  u  ioiint;  of  Upprpient- 
ntive?.  I  «liil  Ai*\Ay  (o  the  original  utid  d»,j»,xut«  of  hU  Irtter  of 
11th  Febru«i,y,  1815. 

Thi»  \w\m'  \m\AMwi\  hy  Mr.  l{(isHr||  io  Hk^  Ho^ton  Stutoniimii,  of 
thn  a7tl.  ol  .lmn»  luM,  l»«mr»  the  muiu.  i«lu(ioii  to  troth  that  hid  orl- 
Rinal  lotlora  tiewr  to  their  ilu|>lioul«»,  Htiii   hin  Bunliincutr*  to  hin 

KIglltltltrCM. 

Nrurly  twoeolmnnsof  ihepBpurpMhliRhfMl  in  tho  Honlon  S|»te«. 
WHO,  Hro  occupied  with  u  nurrHtive  of  rirroinntiuireii  which  proood- 
od.  Httinded,  mul  followerf,,  4h«  dojlvorv,  hy  Mr  Ko«h»^|I,  at  tho 
Dfinirtttient  oi  Stute,  on  the  nA  of  April  hwt,  of  lh«  pnper  pur 
MortioR  to  ho  H  diipli«:Hte  of  hie  letter  ol  I  Ith  Fehrunry,  1U15.  from 
rorw,  to  the  then  Serretitry  of  .st,uc.  I,,  the  oourne  of  this  rinrrw- 
tive.  iMr.  Kussoll  innkex  the  followinu;  tulminnion  ;  how  relot;ltuitlv, 
the  very  Btrnoture  of  the  sentence  in  which  it  it  containod,  will 
show  ;  Hnd  it  in  prooer  that  it  should  he  «'xhlhited  in  his  own  words  : 

"  I  certainly  did  believe  that  I  wan  poinnitted  to  make  thone  cor- 
"  rectioiw  ot  the  copy  in  po«8CSNion.  which  appeared  to  rne  to  be 
"  proper  to  cxhiltit  my  v^ase  moM  advantngeously  before  thattribu 
••  rial"— (the  tribunal  of  the  public] 

The  reuMMiN  of  iMr.  H unwell  for  believing  thtit  he  was  permitted, 
in  l8i!«,  to  make  corrections  which  happened  to  suit  his  own  pur- 

EoscB.  tn«  paper  fornixhed  by  himself  to  be  cotnmunicated  to  the 
louse  ol  Hepre«entHlives  ol  the  I'nited  Stales,  as  aspeciJic  letter 
written  by  him  in  Paris,  in  the  year  l«|f>,  are  as  singular  und  sur. 
prising  as  the  belief  itself.  They  consist  of  insinuations  and  infer- 
ences that  he  had  furnished  the  paper  at  m«  solicitation  ;  that  tho 
word  '« c/M|./irai«,"'  writlen  upon  it,  with  his  own  hand,  gave  no 
fuHher  intimation  or  assurance  that  it  was  so  ;  that  I  hnd  tho  sole 
power  to  puljhsh  it  or  not.  as  I  might  judge  proper,  and  to  consult 
my  own  teehugs  and  interests  in  forming  my  decision  ;  and  that  the 
jmper  was  not  to  be  cxhibite.l  to  the  public  without  the  previous 
exaouuation  and  consent  of  the  aovkksr  rAuTv.  And  with  these 
ingenious  principles,  he  has  interwoven  a  statement  of  facts,  with 
which  he  has  believed  himself  permittad  to  take  the  same  liberty 
that  he  had  taken  with  his  own  letter  ;  making  in  them  tho«e  cor- 
rections which  appeared  to  him  necessary  to  exhibit  his  case  most 
■idvanttigeously  betore  the  tribunal  of  the  public 


of 


139 

mcnt  of  ilu'  rciil  I'mt,  i.  „.„.,T  !,"'''' '°  "'J''  "'"•  !•>  «  mnre  111111 
Tl."  r.„.  ,1,,.. r;,!':;" I" "•''"" •""■'■"ly  r™.  uXlt 

<o  be  commummv,]  in  theil , 3  n  rl»  i     '  *''  '^J;'"'*  ♦''«  P«P««» 

P»P«ri,  I  /«.mc?Hmon«HM.m  , '.  ornl  '''J  ^^"U;'''! '"''"«  for  tho«« 

;y.cr.ury  of  S(„t.,,,„I;„,  ^^  jr  ,Tf  w         m/'  "'""«"  »«  '^e 

^•"  »i«n«t»,.,  of  t|,„  t,.o,„v.     I njr,   f?«  T'"'.'"  '*'  "'««'«y  «fter 

'"feci  pilnripnily  (o  Mr.  l(u«r||W    Irt'     ^"''  ^l'*'''"*'''  ^'''^ '» •"«• 

'vhich  It  hut  been  «tii»#i«l  »i.../«       •    •      -'"  *''  f^«cemb«.r   I814  in 
'0  tho  British  r:    y  ^  «  S'S  ?''^.  '""♦  "«t«r'nin«,I  t"  oC 

'"  tho  minority  on  that  or  nLn    "       '  J"'  ^'^'''  ""'"'^"♦)  «"»• 

"'  communicating  imZ\TrT:T    '"'"7*"' »"  »"m«filt  the  poJrJJ 
With  Mr.R„S;wZ,^!     ^ot^^^^^^^  "-  '"'""%! 

not  now  troublo  the  publi"  ItV«l Vn  r^i.?"^  "^  !^'  "'"«•  ^  «^"" 
'«''tho  .M.rpo«e  of  ..niworinir  the T^J  of  L  ir"*"'"!"  '^^"'"  «'«« 
'ovorrd  th«nxi«t«nce  oftlT«  «tto?  «„,/      *'"""''•  that  r  f|,.«trh'«. 

b  '.  l«u»n  ornot.    It w«.  not    rS  Zthilll     \?  ''"C"ment«  to 
'or  «t  wng  not  n  ntirt  of  fh«  JL.       '' .    """  '''"  '*'"«»'  »f  the  cnll 

no  bearing  upon  thf  inform. fionwhh  S^  ^"Migncd.  .It  had 
Houdo  ««  the  motive  foiMhe.^..;*u  '*""'  """W'ff'I  to  thi* 
ny ti«tion  which  it  co^^ni  t  ;l^'.tutor*  ''^'"""^  '«  "'« 
'»" «  been  taken  in  the  joint  miwion  ZimI  ^^"  '■""  ^"'^  ^^''•c*' 
vote  upon  «  ,,„e«tion  whether  ,n    feh  'nT'"'^'""'  «"d  th«t 

»vhen  made,  bad  b«en  rejectrd    Mr  u       .T"'  ^'   '"'"^«.  «"'ich. 

•'or.ly,nndre«orver|«,Lrolf;i.«  r      *"^i'  '"'•'  ''«''"  *»  the  n^. 

thereafter,  for  Ibe  purpo  ?of  viiljl^r^^  "*^'«"'»«  ^i.  re.'on  , 

All  whether  it  would  be  1   ono,  n  .      ^  ''•«  motivei.    It  was  doubt- 

••""!  Mr.  HussolP,  «oH  X\L"tt  S  ''r  "'^T'^^^'^^'^P'''^ 
"«H«nBtn  rejected  offer  whirl.  U.V-  '"«  motives  for  v,Minc 
t'-  other  lid,  tbir,:/J  '  i  If^iZT^  '"  '"'*'''"*^-  B"^  ^ 
oogo  .at  on.  the  moHt  d:;.in,!:;Vo„f  o  h^!^^^^^^^  7'»^"'ff  to  th« 
' »»'  bad  been  made.  The  rail  rnlJl?/ 1  '"'?"'•«'  ^o"*  »vbich  the 
^Pocnd  intention  of  eliciting  thettero'';r  r'?  '""''^  ^'t''  th« 
wb.ch  ,t  a.te.frd.     To  Unll  wlafeir    !f,  ";?'^^«:'r''. "''  the  fact 


P    Irtlry  nii^},|    ],.^^, 


<?  "!VI'?S 


140 


riae  to  surmises  of  special  motives  for  veiiing  from  the  eye  of  Con- 
gress, and  of  the  nation,  the  discovery  of  that  fact.  As  Mr.  Rus- 
sell was  upon  the  spot,  and  a  member  of  the  House,  I  determined 
to  mention  the  letter  to  him,  and  place  it  ai  his  option  whether  it 
should  be  communicated  to  the  House  or  not.  1  did  so,  at  my 
house,  as  he  has  stated  ;  and  it  was  on  the  26th  of  January.  But 
Mr.  Russell  did  not  say  that  he  had  no  distinct  recollection  of  the 
letter,  to  which  1  alluded,  ajd  that  he  wished  to  see  it  before  he 
gave  his  consent  to  its  publication.  I  had  not  asked  his  consent  to 
its  publication.  I  had  told  him  there  was  such  n  letter  ;  and  left 
it  at  his  option  whether  it  should  be  communicated  in  the  answer 
to  the  call  of  the  House  of  Representatives,  or  not.  His  first  re- 
ply was,  that  he  thought  it  was  a  private  letter,  which  it  would  be 
improper  to  communicate  to  the  House  ;  but,  after  a  pause,  as  if 
recollecting  himself,  he  said  he  wished  to  sec  the  letter,  before  giv- 
ing a  definitive  answer.  To  this  I  immediately  assented.  Mr. 
Russell  accordingly  repaired  to  the  office,  and  saw  his  letter  ;  not 
m  my  presence,  or  in  the  room  occupied  by  me,  but  in  that  of  Mr. 
Bailey,  the  clerk  who  has  charge  of  the  diplomatic  documents. 
Mr.  Russell  then  desired  to  examine  the  whole  of  the  correspond* 
ence  relating  to  the  Ghent  negotiation,  and  afterwards  twice  in  suc- 
cession requested  to  be  furnished  with  copies  of  one  paragraph  of 
the  instructions  to  the  commissioners,  of  15tb  April,  1813.  That 
paragraph  is  the  one  which,  iti  the  duplicate,  is  cited  so  emphatic- 
ally, and  with  so  many  cumulative  epithets,  in  support  of  the  charge 
against  the  majority  of  the  mission,  of  having  violated  both  the  let- 
ter and  the  spirit  of  their  explicit  and  implicit  instructions.  After 
all  these  examinations,  and  after  a  request  to  be  furnished  with  a 
copy  of  this  most  pregnant  paragraph,  in  all  of  which  he  was  in- 
dulged to  the  extent  of  his  wishes,  he  told  me  that  he  saw  no  ob- 
jection to  the  communication  to  the  House  of  his  separate  letter 
of  36th  December,  1^14  ;  with  the  exception  of  a  part  of  it,  not 
relating  to  the  negotiation.  He  was  informed  that  the  pail  only  in- 
dicated by  himself  would  be  communicated  ;  and  accordingly  that 
part  only  was  communicated.  Mr.  Russell  then  added,  that  there 
was  another  letter,  wt'itten  at  Paris,  conformably  to  the  indication 
in  that  of  26th  December,  1814,  and  containing  his  reasons  therein 
alluded  to  ;  and-  which  he  wished  might  also  be  commMnicated  with 
the  rest  of  the  documents,  to  the  House.  This  was  the  first  intima- 
tion I  had  ever  received  of  the  existence  of  the  letter  of  1 1th  Fe- 
bruary, 1815;  and  i  told  Mr.  Russell  that,  if  it  could  be  found  up- 
on the  files  of  the  Department,  it  should  be  communicated  with 
the  rest.  I  directed,  accordingly,  that  search  should  be  made,  and 
afterwards  that  it  should  be  repeated,  among  all  the  files  of  the 
Department,  for  this  letter.  It  was  not  to  be  found.  After  a  delay 
of  several  days,  for  repeating  these  ineflfectual  searches,  I  deemed 
it  necessary  to  report,  in  answei  lo  the  cM  of  the  House  ;  and  the 
documents  were  all  s^nt,  including  that  portion  of  his  letter  of  25th 
December,  1814,whivhhe  himself  had  marked  for  communication. 


141 

It  WM  not  alone  to  me  that  Mr.  Russell 


had 


*♦ 


Februarv'iaTr'J'tl^uP''*"®^*'^*'^"'* 

♦.'iJh  the  other  documents  to  the  House'  h!  k  5®  communicated 
the  statement  of  Mr.  Bailey,  repeatedly  manifested  th/'*''*"^  ^l 
to  him.     He  had  even  gone  so  lar  a<i  tn  Jnr«l    I-     *°*  ^""n*  ♦^"h 

copy  of  itatMe„don^'nd:o^dr1irh^^  ^-^l  - 

from  himself  would  be  received  at  the  Dllrtmlr/  ^'^P^  ^^  it 
eat.on  to  the  House.    He  did  not.  indeed,  make  EL^'  •  °'"?""''- 
jne  nor  was  {  then  informed  that  he  hadCde  ^U^  «jj^«  «"q"iry  t 
I  had  been,  I  should  have  immediately  answ^rL  #k  i  •*®*"'7-   '^ 
received  and  communicated      I  knPU.  „n.  J^  *     ^^""^  '*  "'O""  be 
of  the  letter :  but  I  knew  that.  Xever  Thty  S  't  T^^"** 
have  no  objection  to  their  bein^  conimnnLf  !^     1^^  ,•*«'  '  <^o«ld 
Russell  hiiself;  and  for  frorsuspeSi timV^ 
himself  permitted  to  make  any  X^rat  on!  f^heTon'  ^^''«!'«^'»« 
sent  purposes,  I  should  havethoueht  th«  b»l        ^■^'  *°  ""'^P'"*- 
upon  his  honour.  ^     ^^  ^''''^  suspicion  an  outrago 

But  1  had  no  desire  of  my  own  that  thp  loffn«  L  ij  * 
Bleated.  I  regretted  even  tC  Mrfil  '?i  t  !''?''^  ^«  co"""""- 
part  of  his  letti  of  26trDecembe;  18  4  wh\'^°''''  *''''  '^^ 
d  sagreement  with  the  majority  of  th'e  mi  si'on  sh  ^r^""^*'  *»" 
nicated.  I  regretted  that  he  had  ev^^  fh  Y*^""^**  *»*  ^^o"™"' 
the  Secretary 'of  State  wL^d leen  his  50"'!^^^^^^^  ''  '"f""" 
and  I  was  perfectly  assured,  that  there  neve^LKstp'd  '''^*°'' '' 
when  there  could  have  been  any  neces,  Tv  rL  klf  .  ^®.  *  moment 
motives  for  that  vote.     I  was  assured  thJ^.  n J-,k""  .u  '''*'*''^*t«  ^ia 

If  he  had  not  been  so  over-earnest  in  his  sc  ifudl  \l  ^f^M^^* 
And  I  was  equally  convinced,  that  after  he  harl  tnuV  **"  *^®'°* 
not  ultimately  redound  to  his  credit  I  h»5  *°'*^ />«•".  it  ^ouia 
towards  Mr.  Lssell.  ot'^W^atelnte  ct  'rsrh^^^^^^^^^^ ''  ^-^y 
than  ten  years,  that  of  friendshio  which  in  n«  •    .  ' '°''  ""^^e 

had  been,  in  word.  deed,  or  thSughTvi^^^^ 
ciate  .n  a  trustof  great  importance,  the  general  resuU  nft?\T°; 
been  satisfactory  to  the  country,  h^  had  Si  h-3  li  •  "^ 

to  me,  to  my  peculiar  recard      With  tLu^^  :f  ?  ^'^""«'  sacked 
ties  of  that^rLt  truslWd  mi^g^eVt  &^^  f 

aggrandizement  by  the  •  debasement  pf  any  of  mrcoilpl       '^"^ 
had  sown  no  aeed  of  future  accusation  agafnst  a  b^rothir  '"''•  ■  ^ 
sioner,  m  the  shell  of  a  pretended  vindicairbf  myse  f    I'h  T?; 
up  no  roo  of  rancorous  excitement,  to  be  planted  aftpr  L^i^^^ 
of  years,  in  the  soil  of  sectional  prejudice,  or  partV^^^^^^^^^    ^'P'^ 
I  lamented  to  discover  that  Mr   RusJli  hoi  ^^  Prepossession, 
colleagues  of  the  majorityj  anJ'l  wi  morttfipT  '**  *^'f  ^"^  *"'» 
Bess  with  which  he  appear^rdetermlnTd '^f  ^bUrf:^^ 
agreement  of  opinion,  and  the  part  that  hp  LS  S      •     •  ^^'^  *^'^" 
world.     I  felt  that  it  neither  bpr»mp  m?  ♦     t-^*°  '"  '^'  to  the 
.ication  of  either  of  his  1  «er^^^^^^^^^     Hol°'ffl!?  '\'  'u'T"" 
n.r  Officiously  to  offer  him  fjcilitiestr^hTcomttS^^^^^^^^^ 


♦  142 

be  had  not  suggested  to  me  himseir  I,  therefore,  did  not  aak  him 
to  furnish,  himself,  a  copy  of  his  letter  from  Paris,  to  be  communi< 
cated  to  the  House  ;  but,  on  the  Slat  of  February,  reported  to  the 
President,  for  communication  to  the  House,  all  the  other  docu* 
ments,  embraced  by  their  call  of  the  17th  January  preceding. 

The  message  from  the  President  ^o  the  House,  communicating 
(be  documents,  was  delivered  on  the  23d  of  February,  and  was  or- 
dered tu  be  laid  on  the  table. 

On  the  19tb  of  April,  the  following  resolution  was  adopted  by  the 
House,  having  been  first  moved  the  day  before : 

'^Retohedf  That  the  President  of  the  United  States  be  requested  to  cauie  to 
be  commur'oated  to  this  House,  if  not  injurious  to  the  public  good,  anj tetter, 
or  communication,  which  may  have  been  received  from  Jonathan  Russell,  Esq. 
one  of  the  Minister*  of  the  United  States  who  concluded  the  Treaty  of  Ghent, 
after  the  signature  of  that  Treaty,  and  which  was  written  in  conformity  to  the 
indications  contained  in  said  Minister's  letter,  dated  at  Ghent,  25tb  December, 
1814." 

It  will  be  observed,  that  nearly  two  months  had  intervened  be- 
tween the  report  of  the  Ghent  treaty  documents  to  the  House,  and 
this  second  call,  which  Mr.  Russell  has  admitted  was  made  at  his 
suggestion. 

On  Saturday,  the  20th  of  Apfil,  the  day  after  the  adoption  of  the 
resolution  of  the  House,  and  even  before  it  had  been  officially  re- 
ferred  to  the  Department  for  an  answer,  Mr.  Daniel  Brent,  the 
chief  clerk  of  the  Department,  without  consulting  me,  but  knowing 
the  anxious  desire  that  I  should  feel,  of  being  enabled  to  report 
the  paper  called  Lr  by  the  House,  knowing  also  that  it  was  not 
tipon  the  files  of  the  Department,  called  upon  Mr.  Russell,  at  his 
lodgings,  and  inquired  of  him  whether  he  could  furnish  the  letter 
desired  ;  and  was  told  by  Mr.  Russell  that  he  could,  and  would  de- 
liver it  to  the  President.  Mr.  Brent,  it  seems,  su^ested  that  it 
would  be  better  that  it  should  be  delivered  as  a  duplicate  than  as 
a  copy,  to  which  Mr.  Russell  assented.  This  distinction,  whic'.i  has 
reference  chiefly  to  the  forms  of  office,  would  not  have  occun  id  to 
me.  Between  a  copy,  marked  as  such  by  the  writer,  signed  by  him, 
and  all  in  bis  own  hand-writing,  and  a  duplicate,  furnished  as  such 
also  by  the  writer.  I  can  perceive  no  difference  of  substance, 
though,  as  evidence  in  a  court  of  Justice,  or  as  a  document  in  the 
public  archives,  one  might  bear  the  character  of  an  original  paper, 
and  the  other  only  of  a  copy.  Mr.  Brent  had  too  much  respect  for 
Mr.  Russell,  to  imagine  it  possible,  whether  he  gave  the  paper  as 
a  copy  or  as  a  duplicate,  that  he  should  give  it  other  than  as  the  let- 
ter originally  written,  and  called  for  by  the  resolution  of  the 
House. 

Mr.  Russell,  however,  did  assent  to  the  suggestion  of  Mr.  Brent, 
and,  with  his  own  hand,  wrote  the  word  "  duplicate"  on  the  paper, 
which  he  had  already  prepared  to  deliver,  to  be  reported  in  answer 
to  the  call  of  the  House.  He  did  more  :  he  erased  with  a  scraper 
(lie  word  "copy,"  which  he  had  previously  written  in  its  steady 
and  the  traces  of  which,  are  sitU  discernible  on  the  paper. 


14S 

^  ^'*?*;  *!i!"l*  ^^^*  Mr.  Ruisell  meao.  wh«n,  hi  the  BortoA  Sfatw. 

!J?Jn     \      ^''"''J'®  '"'^'''  **^*  '"'**"  »»«  delivered  the  paper 

[duphcate]  had  indeed  been  written  on  it,  in  conJeqafioce  of  hit 

OTucA  le$$  any  atiurance  that  U  nas  so.''  The«e  are  Mr  Rum. 
jell  .own  words  ;  and  what  can  they  mean  ?  They  haye  beVn,  at 
least  by  .ome  portion  of  the  public,  understood  to  mean,  that  h« 
paper  had  been  styled  a  duplicate,  not  by  Mr.  RuNell,  but  by  mt 
O  no 'the  word  was  written  with  Mr  Russell's  own  hand  ;  and 
when  I  received  the  paper  I  knew  not  that  there  ever  had  pLs'sed 
a  word  between  Mr.  Brent  and  hiro  whether  it  «hould  be  delivered 

5! '  ^°PJ'^?**  *"'.*  *^"Py-  '^^^  ^°"°"  Statesman,  of  the  same  daj 
m  which  his  reply  is  published,  says  "Mr.  Russell,  without  much 
reflection,  consented"  (to  give  it  as  a  duplicate.)  I  should  think  b« 
had  time  enough  for  reflection,  while  at  work  with  the  scraper,  to 
efface  the  word  "  copy,"  for  which  it  was  substituted.  Mr  Ru». 
Bell  s  meaning  is,  therefore,  that,  although  he  wrote  the  word  du- 
plicate with  his  own  hand,  yet  he  did  not  intend  it  should  be  re- 
eeived  as  an  intimation,  much  less  as  an  assurance,  "  that  it 

*VA  9  SO  • 

Mr.  Russell  had  been  explicitly  told  by  Mr.  Brent,  that  his  call 
to  inquire  whether  he  could  furnish  the  paper  called  tor  by  the  re- 
solution  of  the  House,  bad  not  been  at  my  desire,  or  with  my  know- 
ledge, but  of  his  own  motion.  But  it  seems  Mr,  Russell  did  not  be- 
neve  him ;  and  instead  of  delivering  the  letter,  as  he  had  said  be 
would,  to  the  President,  he  brought  it  to  the  Department,  and  de- 
livered It  to  Mr.  Brent  himself;  observing  that  he  was  indifferent 
Whether  it  was  coirmunicated  to  the  House  or  not ;  but,  if  it  should 

'vu     •  ^^^^^^  '*  '"'.gh'  •»«  returned  to  him. 

The  singularity  of  this  observation  is  not  among  the  least  extra- 
ordinary  incidents  of  this  transaction.     Mr.  Russell,  who,  while  the 
farst  resohition  of  the  17th  of  January,  calling  for  the  Ghent  treaty 
document*,  was  to  be  reported  upon  by  the  Deoartment  of  State, 
had  expressed  to  me,  rjid  repeatedly  to  Mr.  Bailey,  the  wuh  that  his 
letter  trom  Pans  should  be  communicated.— Mr.  Russell,  at  whose 
Buggestion  the  specific  call  from  the  House  of  the  19th  of  April, 
lor  that  letter,  had  been  rooved^-Mr.  Russell,  who  in  the  interval 
had  written  to  Mendon  for  the  original  draft  of  his  letter,  had  re- 
ceived  it  from  Mendon,  and  on  the  morning  after  the  resolution  of 
the  House  calling  for  it,  was  already  prepared  with  a  ••  copy"  of  it 
to  deliver  to  the  President,  a  copy  consisting  of  seven  folio  sheets 
ot  paper^transforms  this  copy,  at  the  suggestion  of  Mr.   Brent, 
^wto  a  duplicate,  and  after  having  again  on  Saturday  declared  to  Mr. 
Brent  his  wish  that  it  might  be  communicated  to  the  House,  brincR 
It  on  Monday  morning  to  the  Department,  and  in  delivering  it  to 
Mr.  Brent,  says  he  is  indifferent  wbe"ier  it  should  be  communicat- 
ed to  the  House  pr  not ;  but,  if  not,  wishes  it  may  be  returned  to 
fciro.  * 


Hi 

rfiZinl'^  [h«  WMning  of  this  Urdy  heiilaUoo  and  new-born  io- 
Jfference  whether  ,  -hould  be  communicated  or  not  ?  Why  does 
he  say  that  the  appl.cation  from  the  Uepartment  of  StaVe  L  S 
letter  wa.  made  wi  hout  any  previous  intimation,  suggestion  or 
encouragement  on  h«  part;  and  that,  had  it  not  been^ade.  that 

Kv  nT'*"  "'"*'■  *"^"  ''**'"  '*'"'  "» ^'•^  Department  of  Stale  nor 
jnany  other  manner  presented  to  the  pubhc  ?  Why  did  he  brinirit 

t°to  the  pTT"!  •  "5  '"r'  i^'d^Mr^Brent  that  h^e  Jouhl  deTvVr 
Droved  W^v  H  '  r^  ""^  '*'"'  ^'"'P"'"''  "*'  **•  ^'•-  «'•«"»  h«d  «P- 
KeJartm.!^  o^f  tV  ^  r  '•"P'«"!°», '» »» «» 'J«'»«nd  "Pon  him  from  the 
iTr  ?  M    1      f    '"^^  of  B  private  letter,  never  intended  for  the  pub- 

K  •/»?.*!'■  °°''  "".^  P*"°"  **  *^«  Departmi^nt  of  State,  knew 
that  the  letter  was  private.    Mr.  Russell  knew  it,  ahhough  he  had 

cembeJ  itT^T     ""'""""'^  ^  'i'™  *''«*  '^'^  "^oTt  letter  of  D^ 
cember  25   1814,  was  among  the  documents  of  th«  negotiation  at 
the  Department,  and  asked  him  whether  he  cbo.e  ft  should  be 
commun.n«ted  to  the  House;  he  had  then  at  firs?  told  me  that  he 
thought  that  was  a  private  letter,  which  it  would  be  impriper  to 
commun.cate  ;  but  when,  after  having  examined  it,  heSed  tha^ 
part  of  .t  should  be  communicated,  he  had  told  me  there  was  an^ 
ther  letter  written  from  Paris,  which  he  wished  migbtX  be  com- 
municated.    He  had  not  spoken  of  it  as  a  private  letter,  nor  didTe 
deliver  the  A.;,/«:a^*  as  such  to  the  Department.     He  om.tLd  tVom 
It  the  word  oma/e  which  had  been  written  by  himself  upon  the 
onginal.     Tli.s  omission  was  doubtless  one  of  those  cor Jections 

before  the  trthunal  of  the  public.  Its  tendency  certainly  was  to 
excite  asuspicion  in  the  public  mind,  that  the  original  Ker  walo? 
had  been  upon  the  files  of  the  Department,  and  L  n  the  answej 
^rm  J""'  '  "^  '^"  """'"  ""^'"'^  J«*nuaryr.V  hadV^Tup. 
Mr.  Russell's  delivery  of  his  duplicate  at  the  Pepartment  of  State 

^I'Tu     J  ^"^^i'f  ""'""'y  '^^'''^  M'--  Brent  had  made  of  him 
whe  her  he  could  furnish  a  duplicate  of  the  letter  called  forby Te 
iZTT  of  the  House,  if  applicaUon  should  be  made  to  him  4r  it 
Mr  Rr«.j;rJ7*  "^^  f^^'^l'^r  '  «"^  ^'•-  ^'•^^t  had  tow  Wm VJ 
/^L  Zl  «  ?  r'"-  ^'^''«/'  i^«^*  «t  the  Department  as  a  public 
/««er,  and  as  if  the  origwal  itself  had  been  also  public.    What  then 

SfhH^h  it  „5  *  f ''*''  f  ^  "l?'.  ^^  ««^'««  ^^"^ '  had  the  sole  power  to 
pub  uh  It  or  not,  as  I  might  judge  proper,  and  to  consult  my  own 

feelings  and  interests  informing  my  decision?  There  was  «  a  reso- 
utiOD  of  he  House  of  Representatives,"  calling^pon  the  President* 

Id'Th.  w^.'°°"?"rf*f''  *"  *^r  «  ^«««^  Specifically  designa?- 
«d.     The  writer  of  that  letter,  after  repeated  expressions  mora 

h!rir.'°°°^Kf  k"^""^  *'  ?*"  ""'^  *°  ^'    Bailey,  that  he  13 
that  letter  might  be cominun^cated  to  tl^eHouse.niw  brought  tqthj 


#• 


149 

Deptftment  ndupUeate  of  it.  and  «ays  I  iras  ^t  J » 
or  not.  a«  it  might  suit  my  feeling,  and  ,Wrt    '^'^iT  ^'^  P"*»'"h  it 
f/**""  •«"»••«"»  or  the  dutL  of  a  Scretarv  of  S?;    '^''-  ""«««"  '• 
that,  m  the  unm\  course  of  buginesH  ^h«^       ?*"  ®  ""  ""^  «<>  know 
was  referred  by  the  Preeiden    to  (hi  L?""/"*'""  "''  "'«  «<»«• 
report,  and  that  when  once  his  etr^'h!ii'"''"'r"*  «^  ^t«t«  Tor  « 
ot  the  Department,  it  vJaTmv    n^f     "**  f^^nd'^'ivered  by  himself 
of  it  to  thS  President*  ^oo^^m  ^  S  t  'thl^H^  ''  ''^''^  "'  7 
rectly  charged  me  with  treason  to  my  countrt       T  .""^  '*  ^^ 
little  ess,  my  only  and  inflexible  duh^as  S..^;    "  'V!"''''-ectly  did 
report  it  to  the  President  for  commnni.  ♦•      "''?''^  °'^<«*e  was,  to 
terms  of  the  resolution  of  the  iZre  1?^  ^  %  the 

have  withheld  it  from  the  House  if  Tn  hit      a""^""^  ''"'««'*  "night 
cation  would  be  injuriout  to  /aJ  Ia/v      •'-«'"*'''*  ^^e  communi. 
President,  and  notlwas  the  jX'^"*tn    ''"'•■  »»"' of  that,  the 
dent,  in  forming  his  judgmen.   £  thoTi'ht  ?"""*'"•*  ^^e  Presi! 
opinion  upon  it,  with  what  face  could  I  fS   '^'"Pf ''  *°  ^°"»"'t  my 
withheld?  If  the  letter  was  not  a  tissue  nr'"'   *''«^  it-houldbj  . 
Secretary  of  State,  and  the  Min  ste  'o?Z  Frn'r?J""'*"'«''«-'  »h« 
were  men  unfit  to  hold  any  station  whatlv.y^'f.^  ^'"'^^  '»  *>«^'ce, 
country  ;  and  that  was  the  in.pres«il  "v^  ?  *^«  ««"'««  of  thei; 
duced  by  the  letter,  at  least  tbrZhout  h^l"^  '"**"'^"'  '^  be  pro- 
>ng  section  of  the  Union.     uZ  Xt  nr!^  "'«""  «"^  '°°«t  g^w- 
ed  the  President  to  withholdTe  commu'l""  '°"'''  ^  '"'^^  «dvi,. 
public  interest  ?   If  there  was  ruthTnthe  1^*7  "'.  "'J""°"»  *<>  th« 
not  be  too  soon  known  to  C^ngrerand  to  i  "     .'^  contents  could 
that  the  conspirators  against  the  neacef.  I      a  ""''"J"*  "  ^«»  fi«in« 
ants  of  the  Western  cJuntrv  should  hi       "*^  ""offending  inhabit! 
J«c,  and  that  the  world  of  thTwest   Jodd  h'""'''"^  ''^^'"•^  *he  pub. 
ext.t  of  their  obligations  to  ^'^!^::^\:^^:^ 

coS'o'St'tteXt  t^et^r^  r'^'*^"*^-'  to-Port'a 
ewer  to  their  call.     On  XZl777tVV^'  "°"««.  '«  «n- 

such  as  not  unfrequentlv  hannpno  ..„  "PP"?«d  it  an  inadvertencv 
than  the  current  yVr  KTtU  hS'of  ^'^."^  °'  ''^^^  S 
unconsciously  for  the  date  of  the  or1rina7  i L^^tS l' '^^^tUt^ted 
«.at  he  word  copy  had  been  written  dot  at  tf^A  *''^"  P^'^^^^^ 
/«;)/»c«.'«,  and  scraped  out.    The  er™  h  5V"^*  **^*he  word 
•cautious  and  deiicat^e  hand  ;  its  atteSion  of'.J  •"."*?  ""*'«  ^'*h  « 
per,  was  not  perceptible  to  an  „nli         f-    °' ^'^^  texture  of  the  oa- 
ness  of  the  in^k  whe^n  ^Urmed    Zt^h^^  '^'  '  '""^  '^  ^hefreS 
Pjete.     In  the  progresfof  bSnh^!  •     -T^  ^^P^^''*'*'  *<>  he  com- 
heen  some  dayUfitt^n  upon  pa^^^^^^^^  'V"^  «fterit  b^ 

Natne  pe.eptible,  and  aJe'i?^- al^St^^^;^  -jd.ooa 


146 


words,  the  date,  and  the  whole  letter,  are  in  the  hand-writing  of 

Mr  Russell.  ^      .       ..  j  i.  :i 

On  reading  the  letter  through,  I  found  it  had  been  composed 
with  a  view  to  be  received  and  understood  as  if  all  written  at  Paris, 
in  February,  1815.  Yet  1  was  confident  it  had  not  all  been  so 
written.  I  was  particularly  struck  with  the  following  passages. 
«•  I  will  frankly  avow,  however,  that  my  impressions  were,  and  atiU 
"  are,  that  Great  Britain,  calculating  on  the  success  of  the  power- 
"ful  expedition  which  she  has  sent  against  New-Orleans,  confi- 
"  dently  expected  that  she  would  have  become  the  mistress  of 
"  Louisiana,  and  all  its  waters  ;  and  that  she  did  not,  in  this  event, 
"  intend  to  abandon  her  conquest  under  the  terms  of  the  treaty  of 

«•  Ghent." 

♦'  If  she  be  disappointed  in  her  views  on  Louisiana,  and  1  trust 
««  in  God  and  the  valour  of  the  West  that  s*c  will  be,  I  shall  not  be 
"  surprised,  if,  hereafter,  she  grants  us  the  fishing  privilege,  which 
•♦  costs  her  absolutely  nothing,  without  any  extravagant  equivalent 
<«  whatever." 

"  At  any  rate,  we  are  still  at  liberty  to  negotiate  for  that  privuege, 
•<  and  to  offer  for  it  an  equivalent,  fair  in  its  comparative  value,  and 
«« just  in  its  relative  effects." 

"  I  trust  in  God  she  Will  be"— in  a  letter  dated  Pans,  1 1  Febru- 
ary, 1822 — signed  Jonathan  Russell— addressed  to  the  Hon;  James 
Monroe,  Secretary  of  State— and  delivered  by  Mr.  Russell  to  be 
communicated  to  the  House  of  Representatives,  in  answer  to  a  call 
suggested  by  hiuiself  for  a  letter  written  by  him  in  1815!  And 
Mr.  Russell  charges  me  with  disingetiuousness,  for  communicating 
this  paper  to  the  House  !  And  Mr.  Russell  talks  of  respect  for  the 
Represetitatives  of  the  people  of  the  United  States !  1  am  in  the 
judgment  of  my  country,  upon  this  state  of  facts.  But  as  for  Mr. 
Russell,  when  he  wrote  that—"  I  trust  in  God,  she  will  be"— and 
came  to  the  narne  of  Goo-  -did  not  the  pen  drop  from  his  hand  ? 

I  took  the  letter  to  the  President,  and  expressing  to  him  my  sus- 
picion, that  the  above  passage  particularly  had  never  been  written 
at  Paris,  requested  him  to  cause  search  to  be  made  among  his  pri- 
vate papers  for  the  original  letter,  if  there  ever  had  been  one. 
The  search  was  accordingly  made,  and  the  letter  was  found.  On 
comparing  them  together,  1  immediately  perceived  that  the  original 
was  marked  private ;  which  the  duplicate  was  not.  I  turned  im- 
mediately to  the  prophesies  of  the  duplicate  :  in  the  original  they 
were  not.  I  looked  to  the  passage  in  the  duplicate,  which  repre* 
ietitsthe  fishingprivilege,  not  only  as  utterly  insignificant,  and  trifling 
in  value,  but  as  having  been  proved  to  be  so  by  the  best  informa- 
tion "  we  (the  plenipotentiaries  at  Ghent)  could  obtain  on  the  sub-* 
iect,"  There  was  a  whole  system  of  misrepresentation  in  these 
words  we  could  obtain:  for  they  represented  the  incorrect  estimate 
bf  the  value  of  the  fishing  privilege  which  they  introduced,  as  the 
result  of  information  obtained  by  the  whole  mission  at  Ghent,  as 
having  been  there  diacuBsed,  and  as  aggravating  the  wrong  of  th« 


147 

knt 'Jp^n  th!nJri„?ui;iS^^^  ^-  -hat  they 

as  I  did,  that  the  infoSon  il^  all  lu?  r"'"  ""'"«•  ^oowing, 
formation  concerning  the  S*.T.f  ™«  "formation  ;  that  no  in ' 
have  been,  obtai^eTby  th/ Llt^L^^^^^^^^  »*««»'  «>r  coZ 

doubts  as  to  its  value,  ixpS,^  "y  Mr  £  J?.'T  "'^'"^ 
been  even  a  subject  of  conversitJnn  iLu  ^"?«®"'  '*  bad  never 
the  real  letter  from  Part  to  . p.  i  ^  ""fsion-I  turned  to 
himself  there,  and  Yound  he  h^^'X„  ^^^^..^'^^  -Pre«^ 
information  that  /can  obtain  on  thriubip;*  ,*'?''^'"g  »<>  the  b^t 
that  all  tnat  tale  about  the  obscuphv3  k  •i.'"''  '""nediaWy 
phere,  in  the  high  northern  iS,h1^,  and  hum.d.ty  of  the  atmos- 
Librador  fishery  wrnoMn  f K        -^  to  degrade  the  value  of  the 

been  informati^'/Lo'^ht :  'oVt  jneTttp  ""  r '^"^^^  '«  ^-^ 
d^scovery  which  it  discloses  wS„ot  /rlVJ^Sl'^r^"  '  ^^^^  the 
made  known  to  the  mission     Jharthp'^l     ^^^"^  ^°  ''^^^  ''^^^  «^er 
curing  of  the  fish,  were  in  'the  orLinaf feCr  '^r?°"^  *°  ^^e 
vapours  of  Mr.  Russell's  imaginotlon  aMpl      '  '^  "°*  "'^'"^^y  ^^e 
suk  of  the  best  informatio^S  t  couiJTm""  ""T.**^""  ^^e  re- 
«aw  too,  the  motives  for  tL  subs  tution  nf /?°'    ^9  ^  '"«t«°% 
«n  the  duplicate,  for  the  Mords  / can    '    tbi^  "     '"^'f'''  T  ^""'^  '" 
ginal  had  been  written  the  bill  nfS  ?      !  °'  '^'°«'-     ^^  the  ori- 
tained  against  the  Sritv  o^hp         '^'°^''5^ 
say,  in  their  defencr^C  Jthl!  h  ^^"'''°'^'  '^^^  ^''«™  «t  liberty  to 
jng  liberty,  it  had  been  af^t^ Zl^' ''^^  ^'"^  ^ 
liberty  to  inquire,  why  Mr.  Ru, sell  inthJ7"'    '*  *"''*  ^^^^  «t 
fishery  question,  had  not  revS  to  the-   r^^^  "?*>»  tl'e 

obscurity  and  humidity  andTnces' ant  fo^«^h  f  f '""*  '^•'^^^^''J'  ^^' 
the  value  of  the  fishiL  libertv  ThT'  ^^"^  ::,^^«sened  so  mich 
took  from  them  all  suci  mean/ of  defenTe  "f  r  ''  ''^  '"P""'^ 
«s  navmg  wilfully  sinned  a^ain^t  their  HpHp^  1  '^P^«f««ted  them 
!ng  sought  information  of  the  value  of  thp  f  .  "7  '^^^  '  as  bav- 
ing  obtained  proof  of  its  worthlessne,/  f"^?^  hberly-as  hav- 
Hi  offering  fol^it  an  equivTuent  wWcrwrtl'ttli^-r^^^^  P^^^'^*^'^ 
British  emmissaries.  and  all  the  horZ.    J  i  ^.^''*'*'' '™"gSlers, 

the  «»#n^%inhJbitantrofthe  Wesrwrf^  warfare,  upon 
corrections  which  Mr.  l^jsseil  brlipl^  k-  ,1  '"'  *'"«  «^  those 
'vhich  appeared  to  him  Xe"  to  exll,?/ h?'^^'™'"^^  ''  ^^^^' 
ously  before  the  tribunal  ofS  public  v     ^''  '^^  ""ost  advantage- 

r^^^^^72^^:^    ^-  papers,  .hen  , 
absolute  surrender  and  S^r  sacr^rP  nrl^'^^^^^ 
cheering  cup  of  consolatS doled  ou'  *°  ^^^^ 

for  he  extinguishment,  as  far  as  Mr  Russen^  hhn7'''",f  ^""8 
of  their  means  of  subsistence  *^thJ\h^         f-  .   °""  ^^""I'l  a^afl, 

Perity  of  the  many,  muarfie ^^rLrf 'o  thT  c'„'  ''''"''*^  «"^  P'''^^' 
nor  interests  of  the  few  •''  tn  tt  7      ?y        convenience  and  mi- 
for  early  P-posse::io:rsile  ^.^l  J^^^^^^^^^^ 
'^'1  -bstuuted  in  the  duplicate,  ft  tt^^^^^^S^^^^^^^ 


148 


origfinah  that  his  argument  to  demonslrale.  the  abroji^Htion  of  the 
treaty  of  1 783,  by  the  war,  and  the  conse(\\ient  discontinuance  of  the 
fishing  privilegCj  would  not  be  ascribed  to  any  hostitity  to  those  in- 
terested in  it — the  mingled  emotions  at  the  bottom  of  the  soul  of 
the  writer,  betrayed  by  these  self-accusing  and  self-extolling  varia- 
tions from  his  letter  aa  it  had  been  originally  written,  excited  in 
my  mind  a  sentiment  too  much  cheered  with  merriment,  and  too  much 
mitigated  by  compassion,  for  anger  to  have  in  it  any  part.  But  when, 
in  place  of  a  paragraph  in  the  original  letter,  expressly  declaring 
that  he  had  believed  with  the  majority  that  the  propositions  relat* 
ing  to  the  navigation  of  Ihe  Mississippi  and  to  the  fisheries  ^*  violated 
in  no  way  our  instructions  "  I  found  foisted  into  the  duplicate  a  pa- 
ragraph, accusing  the  majority  not  only  of  the  violation  of  their 
instructions,  but  of  a  wilful  and  wanton  violation  of  them,  as  un- 
derstood by  themselves  ;  and  to  support  this  interpolated  charge,  a 
cancelled  paragraph  of  instructions  solemnly  cited,  of  which  he 
had,  within  two  months^  obtained  from  the  archives  of  the  Depart- 
ment two  successive  copies — let  me  candidly  confess  that  the  senti- 
ment uppermost  in  my  mind  was  indignation.     Mr.  Russell  com- 
ments upon  the  infirmities  of  my  temper,  and  says,  that  when 
aflerwards  i  pointed  out  to  him,  face  to  face,  these  palterings  of 
his  own  hand-writing,  and  gave  him  proof,  from  the  records  of  the 
Department,  that  the  instructions  cited  by  him  in  support  of  his 
charge  against  his  colleagues,  hud  been  cancelled  at  the  time  to 
which  the  charge  applied,  I  was  not  in  a  humour  to  listen  to  him 
even  with  civility.     This  I  deny.    I  did  listen  to  him  with  civility. 
The  reason  that  he  assigned  to  me  for  the  variance  between  his  ori- 
ginal and  his  duplicate  was,  that  the  whole  of  the  original  draft, 
for  which  he  had  sent  to  Mendon,  had  not  been  found,  and  that  he 
.  had  been  obliged  to  make  up  the  two  last  leaves  from  memory. 
He  said,  too,  that  there  was  no  material  variation  o^'  facts,  as  re- 
presented in  the  two  papers.     He  said,  as  he  says  in  the  Boston 
Statesman,  that  he  bad  felt  himself  at  liberty  to  alter  the  paper  to 
make  his  case  better  for  the  public  eye.     He  said  he  had  never 
written  against  me  anonymously  in  the  ncwspopers,  and  intimated 
that,  in  the  year  1816,  when  I  wiis  in  Europe,  there  had  appeared 
in  the  Boston  Centinel  a  paragraph,  charging  him  with  having 
been  willing,  at  Ghent,  to  give  up  the  fisheries — a  thing  of  which  I 
had  never  before  heard.     He  assured  me  that,  in  bringing  his  letter 
before  the  public,  his  motive  had  not  been  to  combine  with  my 
enemies  to  ruin  my  reputation.     To  all  this  I  did  listen  with  per- 
fect civility  and  composure  ;  and  the  last  words  with  which  I  parted 
from  him>  however  painful  to  him  and  myself,  were  not  wanting  in 
civility.     They  are  clearly  impressed  upon  my  memory,  and  I 
trust  they  are  upon  his.     He  is  at  liberty  to  publish  them  if  he 
thinks  fit,  as  they  were  spoken.  I  should  not  have  alluded  to  them 
here  but  for  his  charge  of  incivility,  which  is  as  groundless  as  ail 
the  other  charges  of  which  he  has  been  the  willing  bearer  against 
ine. 


* 


But 


149 


duplicate  of  the  letter  called  forbyTheH™.;  co«ld  f«™.h  the 

1822  drat  in  1  air       7:1  ^^^^^  Department  of  the  date  from 

too  near  at  handTad^it  of  it,  h  • "  ''^'^"^'r  *'^^.  '"^"^"*'«°  ''^ 
As  to  his  giving  eXDhn^Hnn  .  "^  ''V^  ^*  ^^«*  *'"«  «"**  P'««^«- 
give  ?  What  exnIanSrh     J  °  •™^'  '^''"^  explanation  could  he 

nished  a  paper  as  a  ToIiS  PjPer  written  by  him       e  had  fur- 
had  been  detectS  "/"P''^"^«  ^^  '*•  ">  h«  own  hand-writing.     It 

ont,  Lt  it  wafsusceDt.T;^^^^  '"""';  ''^*.^«'"^'  «"d  yet  so  liffer- 
deaine-  and  tL!.^^."^  °°  *''P'«"''*'0"  consistent  with  fair 

attempting  to  accounr?or"^° '"'''"J^  Mr.  Russell  is  reduced  1 
proofKhHasforitnolnT'  ""^^^  '^^  ■""«*  unanswerable 
rately^oeksLa^otgyfoHt^r^^  «« '^-P- 

him,  by  the  alterition  of  ihl'  7/  ^r  ?."^  *°  ""^  ^  '^"^'g^  *»  entrap 
1818,  and  then  to  fa^rl^     ff^  «(  h's  duplicate,  frJm  19m  to 

to  MnB  uTy^Kco^p^^^^^^^^  '  «-«  th«  'J^P'icate 

President,  for  clmuSion  to  th.  H^'*^''  'l,^\'^.P^'^^^  ^o  the 
be  copied  to  Mr  Thomn,  tk  *  °"^^-  ^^''  ^«''«y  ««ve  it  to 
a  youSg  man  of  a  HvTr^l  h  "'*m'  '  ^'"^'^  '"  *»»«  Department, 
of  the  leuer  to  be  ''Paris  uZlf^^  '"'tlo f.^'-^^'ving  the  dat« 
Mr.  Russell  had  been  tTr'oiifhr'F'.  ^^f  I  '"^  '^°°'^'"g  t*'^' 
Congress  in  this  citv  nnf  ^  ^^  '^^*''®  °^  ^''^^  "^o^th  attending 
had^be^n  dei^'aLurjf '°J  ^'r  a  moment  that  .his  datf 
Brent,  who.  -crulgTirhtm'Z''ih?d^^^^  ^^• 

inadvertency,  authorized  him  to  rect.Tv  ^1n  J^  ^.S""  ^^  *° 

ton  thought  that  he  mieht  eS^L  ?hl/l-  ^  ^^^  ''°^^'   ^^-  ^*'''«- 
ther,  bv  makinff  theTamP  nh        ^^^[^"^^^^^^  to  Mr.  Russell  fur- 

fiispWthTrSelrrghttTur  Lr^^^^^^^^^  "«  P--d 
1816,  thinking  that  was  thHeiTnlhlkV"? '^''°**  over  them 
This  change  was  not  only  IKultlt'  *-'  ^«l '''•'««•'. 
made  known  to  me  was  LTn  mvln  k  ^  ^^^^^S^  ?  but  when 
that  all  would  be  serXh  i^'  u-^  ""y  '"®-  ^'•-  ^rent  supposed 
Russell  rimself  and  oSiJ^k""'"'"^  ''"°''"  '^^  alteration  to  Mr. 
date  of  the  ;2;  He  ir  "o^.*^"  rr^R^  ^'l?  rectification  of  the 
of  the  chan'ge.  but  bJotghrhrorigtal^^^^^^  ^T^^^^ 

and  showed  the  date  of  it  to  Mr  hifnt  Jofa      .u  ^«P«''''nent. 
rection.  I  onlv  <i»lr  !,« J  ;„?  V  *°  confirm  the  second  cor- 

only  ask,  how  intense  must  be  the  pressure  of  that  con- 


IfiO 

tcjoatnesf,  which  attempts  (o  palliate  the  variations  in  Mr.  Riis- 
fleil  s  two  papers,  by  represeMing  incidents  like  these,  as  crafty 
Wiles  of  mine  to  ensnare  his  innocence  ? 

Mr.  Russell  complains  that,  after  the  original  of  his  letter  had 
been  found,  the  duplicate  should  have  been  communicated  to  the 
House  at  all.  He  complains  that  I  should  hare  presumed  to  make 
remarks  upon  both  of  them.  He  complains  that  1  wenj  to  the 
House  of  Representatives  on  the  6th  of  May,  and  there  in  person 
sought  for  a  member  who  would  consent  to  make  the  call  which 
was  necessary  for  the  qlJicial  publication  of  my  personal  remarks. 
As  usual,  part  of  these  statements  is  true,  and  part  is  not — my  call 
at  the  House  of  Representatives  on  the  6th  of  May,  was  accidental ; 
being  on  my  return  from  witnessing  the  experin>ent  of  Commodore 
Rodgers's  noble  invention  at  the  Navy- Yard.  I  did  not  there  seek 
for  a  member  who  would  consent  to  make  the  call.  I  never  asked 
any  menjber  to  make  the  call ;  though  I  told  several  members  who 
«j)ioke  to  me  on  the  subject  there,  and  elsewhere,  that  it  was  my 
wish  the  documents  should  be  communicated  to  the  House.  The 
President's  message  to  the  House  of  the  4th  of  May,  which  Mr. 
Russell  had  seen  before  he  left  the  city,  had  informed  the  House 
of  my  desire  that  the  letter  should  be"communicated,  together  with 
a  communication  from  me  respecting  it. 

The  truth  is,  that  my  desire  for  the  communication  of  Mr.  Rus- 
iell's  letter  to  the  House  had  commenced  on  the  same  day  that  his 
own  had  ceased.  Mr.  Russell,  from  the  26th  of  January  to  the 
22d  of  April,  had  been  indefatigable  in  his  exertions  to  bring  this 
letter  before  Congress  and  the  public.  He  had  procured  the  ori- 
ginal draught  of  it  from  Mendon  ,•  he  had  procured  the  call  for  it 
from  the  House  ;  he  had  endured  the  toil  of  re-writing,  with  his 
Own  hand,  at  least  once,  a  letter  of  seven  folio  sheets  of  paper  ; 
he  had  brought,  and  delivered  it  with  his  own  hand,  at  the  Depart- 
ment. At  the  moment  of  fruition  his  appetite  fails  him.  Doubts 
of  consequences  to  himself,  as  well  as  to  others,  seem  to  flash  across 
his  mind.  He  leaves  the  paper — For  what  ?  For  communication 
to  the  House,  in  answer  to  their  call  ?  No  [  "  To  put  it  in  the 
powef  of  the  person  who  might  consider  himself  the  most  liable  to  be 
(ffficted  by  its  publication" — for  the  "  previous  examination  and 
Consent  of  the  adverse  partv."  He  seems  to  invite  objection  to 
ijs  being  communicated.  He  is  quite  indifferent  whether  it  be 
communicated  or  not,  and,  it  not  communicated,  he  desires  that  it 
may  be  returned  to  him.  But  to  make  its  terrors  irresistible,  he 
has  double  and  treble  charged  it  with  crimination  of  violated  in- 
structions ;  and  to  vouch  his  charges,  has  twice  armed  himself 
with  official  copies  from  the  Department,  of  the  cancelled  part  of 
the  instructions  of  15th  April,  1813. 

I  had  never  wished  for  the  communication  to  the  House  or  to  the 
public  of  the  letter,  until  I  had  seen  it.  The  effect  of  its  perusal 
upon  my  mind  was  certainly  different  from  what  Mr.  Russell  ap- 
pears to  have  anticipated.     I  saw  at  once  what  it  was  and  what  it 


\ 


151 


tneant.    !  also  saw,  ,n  a  great  measure,  what  jls  writer  was  whicn 
had  ..ever  seen  before,  and  the  discovery  of  the  oS'let  e? 
two  days  after,  disclosed  him  to  me  in  aH  liis  irlorv      Crf  k       ■    ♦ ' 
wtlTh?dt*^^".  Z'  '  ---^^--i  -faulty lee^; 

and  before  the  nation.  In  the  original  he  had  be^n  a  secrel  ae* 
?ar:;rre'rhf;S\2'  «f -•"•^f  ^'--  '«  the Tplica'^hi  Zi 
Ipect  andt  T  h'  "«^  ?"'  *^  professions  of  unfeigned  re- 
spect  and  to  all  the  secret  discolourings  of  the  conduct  and  oni- 
wonsofhisco  eagues.hadadded  the  nfw  Ld  direct  charee  of  a 

h^Tn  K  K  ^"''^  '*''^"°''  ^''*''°  these  charge/would,  in  my  es. 
timation,  have  been  equivalent  to  an  admission  of  their  t  uth      To 

hZ:  7ZZ6  to'™'  1^*^  ''''  P^-g-riosi!;:  whickt^^  lo?g 
Deen  stimulated,  o  see  this  mysterious  and  fearful  letter  would 

o?meer.r''""''  ^^  ^^-o^^^^^^-  course  was  left  me  buTthat 
tiZTAf^  u^  ^'''"'''^  ''^^'''^  *"»  **»«  «ce«e  "'hich  he  himself  had 
recessatv'fL^^  operations ;  and  I  knew  that  little  more  wouW  be 
necessary  for  my  own  vmdication,  and  that  of  mv  colleagues  in  th^ 

Mr.  Kussell  h  mself,  to  expose  to  the  House  at  once  the  charac t»V 
of  the  accusation  and  of  the  accuser.     I  did.  therefore  desire  that 

hfcomm  :"rif/\'  ^r*^"'  'I'  -"y '•^'"-'^^  upoTthem  hould 
steadTaXf  Vff'  "°"'\'  ^"'^^"»  "'«"♦  'f  Mr.  Russell,  in- 
fetead  oi  affecting  indifference,  had  fairly  acknowledged  bis  error 

ravJE  ht'"'  fur^'^  "*^'^  "^^ '^^  communSJed,  I  Sd 

R  ^u?u  ?""  '"  t*"^*  ''^l"®^^  to  the  President. 
>trS?i  *h^,.  !«"f «  "'ere  communicated  to  the  House  ;  both  were 
Swhlh.;?  '^u  ^«"**^th«''-  resolution,  which  w'as  foj^^anj 
formitv  withTh^  ;'  ^r  '•^"^^^.''^rom  Jonathan  Russell,  in  con^- 
ceX^r  iRii^'  indications  contained  in  his  letIerM)f  the  25th  De- 
amoSffi.  r  *  ^''T^'"^*.?  "P°°  ^""^^i  and  if  that  has  proved 
ft  nnnn  I      °'!r''  f'  ^T'l'  ''^  ^^^^'^^  '•«««"«ct  that  he  brought 

upon  himself     It  was  Ji.s  fault  there  was  any  difference  between 

l?n«U.  ''"T:;\"P«°-  He  should  also  remember,  that  if  the  orT 
gnal  alone  had  been  communicated,  he  would  have  been  deprived 

*A  fil*  ^"f" ^."  "  •"•! !!'''«°  '»  supposing  that  I  attach  any  importance 
Lit  \'''  t^^^Sf^^ihentMon  to  his  professions,  or proy! 
of^  S.  •?.'^-  ^*'?  ^'^"'""'"  -^^^  th^'-e  b«  between  the  word 
« L.S  '  ""'^  .''!;  '^•thDut  protest,  who,  after  writing  the  word  du- 
ZlT.  ^'*°  If^"?*"  '^""^°  ^"'^  ^'S"^**  hy  himself,  to  be  communi- 
TThT  **  P"hl.c  document  to  a  legislative  body,  tells  the  public 
imi  be  gave  no  further  intimation,  mnrh  lo....  «„  „«e Ti-.  ^. 


41 


152 

*«»  SO,  and  avows  that  it  was  not  so  ?  M  the  name  of  God,  under 
Mr.  Kusseli  s  pen,  could  not  deter  him  from  converting  the  past 
into  the  future,  that  he  might  enjoy  the  honours  of  prophecy,  and 
couple  with  his  trust  in  the  Deity,  his  confidence  in  the  valour  of 

f  HT  ®n'  '"^^'^  ®''*^"*'^  *^°°''^  *  ^^"^  ^*""  considering  the  declaration 
ot  Mr.  Russell  as  either  more  or  less  sincere  for  beine  backed  by 
hw  protest  ?  ^ 

''  To  add  a  perfume  to  the  violet 

"  Is  wasteful  and  ridiculous  excess." 

But  if  Mr.  Russell,  after  delivering  on  the  22d  of  April  his  du- 
plicate at  the  Department  of  State,  and  especially  after  he  knew 
that  the  ongnal  had  been  found,  was  no  longer  solicitous  that  either 
of  them  should  be  communicated  to  the  House,  he  had  neither 
given  up  the  inclination,  nor  the  intention  of  appearing  before  the 
public  as  the  accuser  of  his  colleagues  of  the  majority  at  Ghent. 
He  left  the  City  of  Washington  on  the  6th  of  May,  the  day  after 
the  House  of  Representatives  had  received  the  President's  answer 
to  the  call  of  the  19th  of  April— with  that  answer  the  President 
communicated  to  the  House  my  report  to  him,  which  had  been 
accompanied  by  a  copy  of  the  duplicate  left  by  Mr.  Russell  at  the 
Department  for  communication.     But  the  President  did  not  com- 
municate the  copy  of  the  duplicate  itself.    He  informed  the  House 
that  the  original  had  also  been  found^that  it  had  been  marked  as 
a  private  letter,  by  the  writer  himself^that  it  disclosed  differences 
of  opmton  which  would  naturally  call  for  answers  from  those  im- 
plicated by  it ;  and  that  I,  as  one  of  them,  had  already  requested 
that  it  might  be  communicated,  together  with  mv  remarks  upon  it. 
Under  those  circumstances  the  President  declined  communicating 
the  letter  called  for,  unless  the  House,  upon  a  knowledge  of  them, 
should  desire  it~in  which  case  he  informed  them  that  it  would  be 
communicated,  together  with  my  report  upon  it. 

All  this  was  known  to  Mr.  Russell  when  he  left  the  city  ;  and  it 
IS  presumed  that  he  also  knew  that  the  call  for  the  Setter  would  not 
be  renewed  by  the  mover  of  the  resolution  of  the  1 9th  of  April  • 
yet  Mr.  Russell  went  to  Philadelphia,  and  there  caused  to  be  print- 
ed in  the  National  Gazette  of  the  10th  of  May.  another  variety  of 
Tuf^""^^  ^i^h  February,  1815,  from  Paris/to  Mr.  Monroe- 
still  differing  from  the  original— differing  also  from  the  duplicate, 
which  he  had  delivered  at  the  Department,  but  satisfactorily  prov- 
ing with  what  '--ronuity  he  had  told  me  that  the  two  last  leaves  of 
his  original  di  ad  not  been  found  at  Mendon,  and  that  he  had 
beenobliged  to  supply  their  contents  in  the  duplicate  from  memo- 
ry—thetripheate  of  the  National  Gazette  was  accompanied  by  an 
editorial  article,  vouching  for  its  authenticity  as  a  copy—vouchine 
from  good  authority  th^l  Mr.  Russell  had  had  no  share  in  the  call 
(of  the  House  of  the  19th  of  April)  for  the  private  letter— and 
commenting  m  a  style,  the  apologetical  character  of  which  indicates 
Its  origin,  upon  the  privacy,  which  it  urged  was  not  secrecy,  of  the 
letter;  upon  the  professions  of  Mr.  Russell's  respect  for  his  col- 


153 

face  of  it,  came  directiv  nr  ?nH  °\,'*'Pj«'nacy-all  tl.is,  upon  the 
The  lette'r,  as  pubtheJ^irthe  NTti^u"'"  ^'^  ^"««^"  h'-nselt! 
private,  «s  the  oriil  had  been  u  hth  ""'""'  r'  ''°*  '""'•'^ed 
^President's  message.  Jt  had  S.^^'h^k''  "°'^  '^"°"'»  '''•«'»  the 
franchised  fishermen -he  tel  f  p"  i        ^''^  P«««gync  upon  the  dis- 

and  -bdued  predii:U'%rJX'srsit ''llT''^^^  ^k^'^'^^'^- 
spirations,  and  the  trust  in  ftnH  T!i  lu  '^"^  prophetic  in- 
which  were  in  the  duTcate  and  n',"  ?.  ^^e  valour  of  the  West, 
off  all  the  cumulative  eph^^  '*:*  ^g'""''  ^'  had  stripped 

of  a  wilful  violation  oTin^t^ct  on  '"  ^^.^^P'^^'^'^to  the  ch'arge 
charge  of  havine  vioI.tPH   hi;. ^  ^  '^^^  *^^"  dismissed  the 

ea:p/ic,Y  and  implicit  ca^ZZ^' ^.  ^  emphatic  citation  of  the 
But  it  had  rJine6tle:^r^^^^^^  V^  ^P"'-  ^813. 

that  lummous  exposition  nf  „*r^^  I  ■  ,  "  '"'^  ^  can,"  in 
fogs  which  had  bC  rscovered To  r'  '^'''f  '"^  '"^^^^^^^^ 

value  of  the  Labrador  fiherV  and  »Hh  k^*.^"''*'"'^  '''""""^'^  t»>e 
tions  were  no  longer  cited  .'nf'h.?  /^r"^.''  *^  cancelled  instruc- 
the  remnant  of  infer^Lt  "ctrfe'^  h1  l^^ev^S!;'  T ^  *^  ^"r  ^* 
they  were  expressly  subjoined  ptfn'o  !.  ^  *'''*^  ^^^'^  violated, 
with  an  abundance  of  Sised  worn/P'"'?'^"  *"  '^^  publication 
of  this  violation ;  and  tb  w^^^  S'm  P?"^  °"t  *'^«  heinonsness 
shown  to  Mr.  Russell  a  t^e  n^*^    .        interview  in  which  I  had 

the  letter  of  4thSbfrr8H'?:XT'  '''''''''''  ""^  ^'^  "^ 
not,  but  that  of  the  letter  of  the  i 'J  h  n  ,  .'*'"°)''""""'"^'  "'^ich  had 
received  before  the  pronosll  „I       k^u^u'  ^^^'*'  "'^'^h  had  been 
rested,  had  been  irrtfaVSi,? ,f  '^^  '^"'^'  ^^  ^'«'»"o" 

plicate  of  the  NationalGaietl  h  d  i^o^^^^^^^  •  ^^'"  "'" 
original,  which  haj  been  dismissed  fZ'T.     i^^P"«<«^'•ipt  of  the 
tlife  three  hopeful  other  waTs  of  1-°^^       duplicate,  containing 
sell's  resources  of  ne-otratToTtwn        !^'^'"/  ^^^''^^  hy  Mr.  Rus? 
over,  instead  of  the  ''course '^^  iTt  '^'''  '^'  '^^S^^'^^'on  was 
only  being  omitted.     The  trTpl  cL  %  i^^xr""'  '^^  '^'''^  '^^^r 
short,  proved  that  the  orijnal  drift  /  ^^t  ^^''^''«'  G«^««e,  in 
plete  ;  and  that  all  Us  oZ^  il'!'"?  *     ^  ^'"^°"  ^^^  *'««"  ^im- 
duplicate,  and  its  on  ssS  h 'd  £    "''  "'  *'""  ''  '^""'^  «f  the 
memory,  but  to  superfluities  of  1'::,^^"^'  "'  *'  ''^^*^"^'^«  °*' 
belr:^;Vli::srof  ^:7.^^^^^^^^^^^^^        «,^-  R-seH,  in  bringing 
ment  of  his  colleagues. 'rS  I  L'lh'rK"'*'""'  ^'^  '""P^^^h! 
was  such  of  me.  is  fulll  admTtid  b^^       ,?^^"f  ™''^'«°~t^^^^  it 
man    by  styling' me  th^  W^er  ^  ^^T^^^  States- 
sufhciently  indicates  his  disposition  n^/h*^  '"  ^^'^  publication  he 
to  concentrate  his  charges  aSt  1    1^  ^'"^^'''  "^'''^  operations 
marks  upo„  the  oridn.r  nnf^     r^  ''^""^-     ^«  't  so.     In  rav  i 
•tyled  ita/aTow3?l:!:^t^'^''^«^«  of  his  accusatory  l^tfer  I 
—  "-^  ""'^"^'Preseniaiions.     He  complains  of 


.   154 

tbifl  a«  of  virulenee  and  acrimonj/,  which  he  bortsls  of  not  having  re- 
turned.    If  virulence  and  acrimony  hjul  no  otlier  vehicle  than  hiii  ^h 
Iringuage,  if  they  could  be  disguitted  under  professions  of  unfeigned 
respect,  however  cautiously  Mr.  Russell  had  abstained  from  them 
in  bis  original  letter  from  Puris,  he  had  l)een  much  less  observant  of 
that  decorum  in  the  duplicate,  prepared  with  new  relishes  of  crimi* 
nation  to  suit  the  appetite  of  political  hatred  ;  and  (he  publication  in 
the  Boston  Statesman  is  by  no  means  sparing  either  of  virulence  or 
acrimony  against  me.     The  whole  tenour  of  his  argument  in  the 
original  letter,  against  his  colleagues,  was  sneering  and  sarcastic. 
In  the  Boston  Statesman,  besides  direct  charges  against  me,  of  disin- 
genuomness.  of  having  matle  an  unprincipled  mi\  unprovoked  attack 
upon  him,  of  disrespect  to  the  House  of  Itepre.sontativcs,  of  Infirm- 
ities of  temper  and  taste,  and  of  being  a  dreaming  visionary,  ho  tries 
even  the  temper  of  bis  wit  to  assail  me,  and  l)y  a  heavy  joke  upon 
an  expression  used  in  my  remarki*,  indulges  ]m  own  instinct  of  mis- 
qnoling  my  words  to  make  them  appear  ridiculous.     If  this  bo  Mr. 
Russeirs  mildness  and  moderation,  it  looks  very  much  like  the  viru- 
Jence  and  acrimony  of  others.     In  the  transactions  of  human  socie- 
ty, there  are  deeds  of  which  no  adequate  idea  can  be  conveyed  in 
the  terms  of  courtesy  and  urbanity  ;  yet  I  admit  the  obligation  of  a 
public  man  to  meet  with  coolness  and  self-command  the  vilest  arti- 
fices, even  of  frawd  and  malignity,  to  rob  him  of  the  most  precious 
of  human  possessions,  his  good  name— '» thrice  happy  they  who 
miwter  so  their  blood."     If  in  my  former  remarks  upon  Mr.  Kus- 
Bell's  Janus-faced  letter,  or  in  this  refutation  of  his  new  and  direct 
personal  attack  upon  my  reputation,  I  have,  even  in  word,  trans- 
gressed the  rule  of  decency,  which,  under  every  provocation,  it  is 
still  the  duty  of  my  stition  and  of  my  character  to  observe,  though, 
unconscious,  myself,  of  the  offence,  I  submit  to  the  impartial  judg- 
ment of  others,  and  throw  myself  upon  the  candour  of  my  country 
for  its  forgiveness.     This  paper  has  been  confmed  to  a  demonstra- 
tion of  the  frailty  or  the  pliability  of  Mr.  Russell's  memory,  in  r^< 
tton  to  facts  altogether  recent.     As,  upon  an  issue'  of  focts,  I  do  not 
even  now  ask  that  my  word  alone  should  pass  for  conclusive,  state- 
ments of  Mr.  Brent  and  Mr.  Bailey,  relative  to  the  production  of 
Mr.  Rus-ielPs  letter  before  the  House  of  Representatives,  and  to 
the  incidents  from  which  Mr.  Russell  has  attempted  ta  extort  a 
charge  of  disingenuousness  against  me,  are  subjoined.     My  only 
wish  is,  that  they  should  be  attentively  compared  with  Mr.  Rug- 
sell's  narrative. 

In  another  paper  I  shall  prove  that  Mr.  Russell's  reminiscences 
of  the  proceedings  at  Ghent,  bear  the  same  character  of  imagina- 
tion substituted  for  memory ;  and  that  what  he  calls  "  the  real  his- 
tory of  the  transaction,"  [the  fishery  and  Mississippi  navigation  pro- 
posal,] contradictory  to  the  statement  which  I  had  made  in  my  re- 
marks, is  utterly  destitute  of  foundation. 

JOHN  QUINCY  ADAMS. 

Washington,  I3th  July,  1832. 


U5 


Mr.  Brtnt",  Sfatement, 


J)ep-rtment  of  State  with  i  copy  of  hT,  "uor  from  i^  ""''  ^'^''''^  '""'"''^  ««»• 
btate,  « hich  wa»  rtforrod  to  i„  «  re  olu  io„  l[l  .!^"''  !°  ""'  ^"'>""y  «f 
raNsURe  (but  which  had  actually  pa  Jd  ,r .  a?  b  forfw.  '"u""  """'  °"  «»• 
noproscntu.ives,  upon  the  motion  of  D„clor  F  fvS  ?.  '"^  '":'«''  ""'  "«"»«  «f 
J.ould  be  adopted  by  th'n  House,  and  rrelL  ulic^r"  •''"  ""'*'  '"«'"'»«'' 
for .. ;  obsorvioK  to  hi.„  di«tincti;  u,k|  pIrUcu la  'J'^hoJ  ""V  T"'*«  "»  ^m 
«l>"r.ty  to  make  such  an  appncatio.rmS  anj  ^ha.  r'"'  "'"' .'  *•""  "»  •- 
««<;(<rtiini  the  facts  iust  .tHiJ,!      i        '"J""^"*  «"<>  'nat  my  entire  objert  waa  tn 

-  that  his  .i/^Iuei^raS'Je"  ntiy'-l^aZutlVfi^t'ir'  .""V  "r*^'"  ^^"-^ 
•l-esiio., ;  that  he  had  it  thereby  inZ 021,, „"'  "'"  ''""  "'  "••  '«"«  ia 
set  about  making  one  imm/2elv  J.rh  ^  «'""//''""<'"ip'  «f  U,  ami  w„uS 
•ho  President.  'up„„  wh^h  I  rfnarkd  Vat  Th  "''''"'' ,'"  '^°"''* «««'-«, a 
course,  the  original  haviuR  been  a7d"c2  to  h  .,  "t,"""^,  *"  ^  ""'  P'^P"" 
ry  of  State.  I  then  obse.^ed  to  Mr. TulS  thnl  ,'  'ri'''''"' '"'"'"  »«"«'*- 
di.plicate  than  as  a  copy  ;  that  he  kn^w  ,h       '•  •     .  ''*  '"'^  *""'"  ''«''''«"  ««  M  • 

to  all  .uch  communication..     He  seemed  lZ.i  '^1'^"""  ''*'""  ^*'''  "'S""' 
11.at  he  would  conform  to  it,  riTouTJvh,/  „.rb/'^  ^^'^  "'R8e«tion,  and  Lid 
,  trould  prelcr  Rivinga  copy.'a.suci"  or   hf.,  h'         fl't'"''  ""'""'•ion  that  be 
«i..plicH,e  of  the  idetuicl^ieuer    4keo  o    andTf    ^T"^'  ""^  «•»""  »''«»  • 
Mansmitted  by  him  from  Paris  to  trthenSer?.,       Tc    •"'   *"''=''  »"•<«  »>«« 
by  a  double  n.o.ive  to  this  injuirylfirrby  a„  hlL;*;..' "'^k   f  ""  P'"'"'P»«'* 
wient  to  which  I  bolon^d  should  alwav.  hi        '">'";""'  wish  that  the  Depart- 
renuired  of  i.  by  the  fl^use  o7ltj  ^at  /e^'^a  '"  J't"  t'"" '"''^''  ^ 
hons.on  that,  if  it  were  not  so  prepared  in    his  na   ?'  "'="'""y'  '»>  an  appr.- 
t.ons  might  bo  made  aRainst  the  Head  of  tha    nr/n  .       '  "??  ""Ju«t  imput.- 
^us  of  obviating.     In  This  interview,  m/  Russe^lfniH     ""''.''''''=''  '  *"  *'««'- 
mce  Doctor  Floyd  had  eubmitied  hi«  I«t  .     •    "'^  *''■'  '*  ^'">  ««  '"«in- 

^cntatives  ,  that  he  was  inC^^  tf^/  b^'thi"''"":  'I  "f  ."*'"«°  «^  ^^P^- 
connmunicated  to  Coneress  for  hl^^  iVSi'.- ^  ""'''  """  '"»  J«»"  "hould  b« 
.he  negotiation  of  the  Sy  o/cherwl?  *?a!f '"^ /.-'.''«  ''"'^  »»'^<'"  ^ 
8ame  gentleman's  first  motion  uuon  h^  ,»Inf .  V  '''' ^'''''"'''' '  but  that  th, 
knowledge  or  advice.     On  the  2^iJ,l  "''J""'  ^^'  '"*''<'  without  hia 

...e,  in  Jy  room  at  "he  5epa    men    of  Stat'e  %  T""','  "*''•  *'""*'"  '""'"«''  «     ' 
«ith  a  request  that  I  would  delTve"  it  over  ,„h        ^^  "'''""'"  "^  "'«  Secretary, 
plicate,"  a  copy  of  .vhich  wa     Imlrated  Tv'  f"  T"  *"*"'  "f  "'^^  ••^"' 
Representatives,  on  the  7th  of  MayTaJ  ^bservi'^.i   J      I''*'".'  l**  ""'  """''''  "^ 
no  particular  solicitude  about  it,  J„5    reout.  ■^^'IV    ""  •":  '"'*  '°'  ""»' ''«  ^'I* 
him,  if  not  used  by  the  Depar  ment      A  31!  "'"."  '"'«»''  ''«  '•««"fn^'<l  to 
put  into  the   hands   of  Mr^Thoma,  Thr...?^  "  ""^  afterwards  this  pa,H,r  wa. 
to  be  copied.     Perceiving   haT  i?  bore  5;!e  at 'P„"r  °'  "l"  S'^'''  '^'^ ''^«  ''^'^e' 
1822,  when  Mr.  Russell  was  known  .A      f      .''"'  °"  "'®  "">  *"  *ebruarT. 
this  city,  as  a  member  of  the  Hous;  of  Renre^r^ri*'^  "T'''  "^  ^ongrew?^ 
asked  my  advice  whether  he  shouW  inserMhat  H«        ''!'.  """  ^°""«  S^'tJem""       ' 
told  him,  without  hesitation/to  insetlSlfi^.?  '.",«i*  ""^y  "  "°»  '  »"»d  I 
evidently,  from  inadvertence    naSe  In  fs.ak      '!.^  ''i  ^*^^'  "  *^'--  «""«»  "^ad 
it  that  date  accordingly   and  Zl.il  «  " '"/'"'  ^"^"^    ^r.  Thruston  gave 

self,  which  he  was  ran  cr.blnrundl'rr"''''"'  "'V""'*""  '"  »»'«  P^P"^  ^^ 
thorized  to  do  so,  and  tha  it  wouW  nevl  .  '^'^"""".'hat  he  was  likewise  au- 
Mr.  Adams  came  to  be  app  1^6^  of  Zll  ^  °'^"'=«  ""•<^"'"  of  any  sort.  When 
teration  in  the  date  of  tff"«du„nLS»  '"';^*"'''''  P^'-^ularly  of  the  al- 

much  surprise  and  displeasure  unlnth"  ''"P"'  ^'^ '"""''""ted   and  expressed 

-.w  immediately  aft  r  tLJ  hLpCd  andrwh"'    ,^"'  **"  ?""^"'  '^"o'"  ' 
"«y  nappenert,  and  to  whom  I  communicated  what  had 


136 

been  (ton*,  expreised  hii  full  and  entire  approbation  of  it ;  and  the  next  day  li« 
brought  to  the  office  the  draught  from  which  he  atated  the  "  duplicate"  wai  pre- 
pared by  him,  bearing  date  Paris,  llth  February,  1815,  which  he  particularly 
■{lowed  to  me,  aa  a  corroborative  justification  to  the  Department  of  State  for 
the  alteration  that  had  been  made  in  the  date  of  his  paper.  It  was  then,  1 
think,  that  I  informed  him  of  the  substitution  which  had  been  made  in  the  offico 
copy  of  the  year  1815  for  tliat  of  18l6,  to  correct  our  own  mistake ;  aud  he  au- 
thorized and  requested  me  to  have  a  like  alteration  made  in  his  "duplicate,*' 
which  was  accordingly  done.  Mr.  Russell,  upon  this  occasion,  again  expressed 
bis  indifference  as  to  the  determination  of  the  Executive  with  regard  to  this 
"duplicate,'*  aud  repeated  his  request  that  it  should  bo  returned  to  him  if  not 
used. 

Ih  one  of  our  conversations  I  aBkcd  him  why  he  had  delivered  that  paper  to 
ne,  and  not  to  the  President,  to  whom  he  had  said  he  would  deliver  it  ?  His 
reply  was,  that  he  had  done  so  because  he  deemed  that  course  most  respectful 
to  the  Department  of  State,  being  under  the  impression,  notwithstanding  my  de- 
claration toiha  contrary,  that  1  had  sounded  him  upon  the  subject  of  the  paper 
in  question  by  authority,  (meaning,  I  presumed,  by  direction  of  the  Secretary 
of  State,)  and  that  it  was  actually  required  at  the  Department  of  State. 

In  a  conversation  between  Mr.  Russell  and  myself,  on  the  1st  May,  in  Mr. 
Bailey's  room,  at  the  Department  of  State,  in  the  presence  and  hearing  of  that 
gentleman,  he  fully  and  expressly  admitted  and  confirmed  the  correctness  of  the 
statement  given  in  this  paper  of  the  conversation  iK-tween  us  of  the  iiOth  of 
April,  at  his  lodgings,  with  regard  to  the  facts  that  the  call  of  Doctor  Floyd  for 
litB  letter  had  been  made  at  his  suggestion,  and  that  I  mentioned  to  him  I  had 
no  authority  to  make  an  applicaliomto  him  for  a  copy  of  that  letter,  and  that  I* 
made  none. 

,.,   ,  DANIEL  BRENT. 

:yashinglon,  lOthJuly,  1822. 


Mr.  Bailey's  Statement. 

Several  days  after  the  passage  of  the  resolution  of  the  House  of  Represent- 
atives of  the  United  States,  of  17th  January,  1822,  moved  by  Mr.  Floyd,  and 
calling  on  the  President  for  copies  of  certain  papers  relative  to  the  negotiations 
at  Ghent,  but  before  the  copies  had  oeen  communicated  to  the  House,  Mr.  Rus- 
sell, of  the  House,  called  at  my  room  in  the  Department  of  State,  and  expressed 
a  wish  to  see  a  letter  addressed  by  himself,  separately,  at  Ghent,  to  the  then  Se- 
cretary of  State.  He  stated  that  the  present  Secretary  of  State  had  mentioned  the 
letter  to  him,  and  had  desired  to  know  whether  it  was  his  (Mr.  Russell's)  wish 
that  this  letter  should  be  communicated  to  the  House  with  ot^ier  papers  embraced 
by  the  above  call,  or  not.     This  letter,  (a  short  one,  dated  "Ghent,  25th  De- 
cember, 1814,")  was  accordingly  shown  to  Mr.  Russell  by  me,  in  a  volume  con- 
taining the  original  communications  from  our  Plenipotentiaries  at  Ghent,  which 
had  been  bound  and  lettered  in  the  Department  several  years  before.    Mr.  Rus- 
sell, on  reading  the  letter,  said  that  he  saw  no  objection  to  the  communication 
of  it,  and  asked  me  if  I  saw  any.     The  reply  was,  that  none  was  seen.     Ho 
tiaid  that  the  concluding  paragraph,  as  it  related  to  his  return  to  Sweden,  and 
not  at  all  to  the  negotiations  at  Ghent,  did  not  require  to  be  communicated  to 
the  H'use.     1  requested  him  to  mark  such  part  as  he  wished  communicated. 
This  he  did ;  and,  conformably  to  this,  the  copy  was  made,  by  subsequent  di- 
rection of  the  Secretary  of  State,  and  thus  it  appears  in  the  printed  copy,  p.  50. 
At  the  same  time,  or  very  soon  after,  (1  do  not  remember  which,)  Mr.  Rus- 
sell expressed  a  wish  that  the  letter  might  be  found  and  communicated,  whicfa^ 
in  his  letter  of  25th  December,  1814,  he    intimated  his   intention  of  writing. 
The  wish  was  repeated  at  subeequent  times,  both  at  my  room  and  elsewhere ; 
and  much  desire  was  manifested  by  him  on  the  subJRct.   'Mr.  Russell  and  my- 
self together,  as  well  as  myself  separately,  examined  at  diffexeit  titnes  tte 


167 

Irf  r,  """  •"•="*  '«'-  h«d  b;;„  J  «'„•":'"'?  informed  m.  th.,  W.'C 
•«ion  to  him  .ince  the  call  of  17,h  Jai.uarv  •  . 'h^k  'T  ^'-  ""«•«»'«  d.elM. 
Rumll',  le„er  of  25th  December  isT/U..    J        ''' "'"•""  •»•<'  of  Mr 

'>ome,  (in  Ma««achu8ett.,)  and  that  ».»        T  '  ''"P^  "^  '« ''•'•.  but  had  .t 
<'aughter   there;  but  .uppisXm  iou  drtl?'  V""^^  ^^  w'ri.^  T^' 
(flr.t)  call.    He  «,ked  me  if  I  supposed  1  co'.         ^'  "  '°"P"''"'="  ^*«b  tS. 
•nd  communicated  to  the  House  S  The^.h'.      """'  ""V  '^*""«'  be  received 
not  know  sufficiently  what  was  ubuTi  1 .     k      '  '"P*"'     ^  "PUed  «hat  I  did 
the  .'duplicate"  at'the  Ca^S  ^^'o'l/me"  k""'  k^^'"  "^"•'^  d"  v«"d 
w'l?  S'  "If  •^''PJ^'  ""-^  'h-  she  had  B^^' l"""  *''«  •"  "ad  written  ,o  hii 
While  Mr.  Russell,  at  his  firKf  „■,,:* 
office  he  noticed  a  paragraph  in  the   1,17  ""•»'"'"«  varioua  record,  of  the 
of  15th  April,  mi  respectU  filtZ-H    "*^ 

^i"ch  was  omitted  in  the  copy^e„  1  r '  '  '^-"'"L"  "V  ''""«• '  «  paraSran! 
8«ge  of  13,h  October,  ISlT^see  W„^,  T"' ''^  ^'- ^'"'^••"n  with  bl^^ 
^hich,i,i,  believed,  ^aHneUrouSM-n^  ''"P""'  ^"'^  »»  P- 3S7  )T„d 
^ette  of  loth  May,  hn  Of  hi  Mfan, '",','  "PP"*""' '"  «he  Nation^  Ga^ 
direction  of  the  Secretarv    r  m,,i  «•••  Kussell  requested  of  me  a  codv      n„ 

w«k,  after,  (,  .1-*^:^  f  i.  ^^  A^hirrr  "w"'™ ""  "^^p^ = ";d?i;v,?." 
-;..or„otfou..d,a„dLki„g^iiK;r:^iSwr^^^^^^^ 

(whXs,S;^:lSi;r.;f;^^^^^^^^^^^  was  at  my  room,  and  , aid 

'";Wy  without  his  knowledge,  or  wit  Ztron.  Z  *"?  ."""'""  ^°'  "^bat  call  «,. 
effect.  He  also  said  he  did'  not  kn^w  Mr  f1  ,?  '"*"!  ''*"'»  """"".  to  tZ 
tnonon  (for  the  call  of  17th  Ja".uarr)  ^^"^ "  """'""  '"'"  """'i^g  bi.  fir" 

tered  from  1822  to  ,816,  TnlV6\%^''ZTnt\J'^  ''""  •"•''"«  "•«««'- 
alteration,  expressed  distinctly  his  displeasure  afthl-  ^^"'""V'  °»  «e«ing  the 
Russell  next  came  to  the  Department  Mr  R'-"!    «='«'»"'"a''ce.    When  Mr. 
h.m  the  incident  of  the  alte.ation  from  1822  t„  1816  "'^  ^JT"!'*  mentioned  to 
impression,  scarcely  leaving  a  rioubrtho.f.-.  m     »'  ""^  ^■"''  "  «™"«>y  my 
this  intimation  happened  at  5,is  or  li,!   ^     ^':  ^'^"'  "  uncertain  whether 
that  1816  was  put  Z  Met  IsT  ZthTlnL'''-  i^""""')  '"«•»•«" 
the  copy  lor  the  House,  if  such  was  Mr  «■  J^n'     .    *'°""  *'*'  **'*  '*'**^'"R  o^  ^ 
only  assented  to  the  altUation,  (To  ISlsS  h.T    '  '"'*?''•'•     **''  R"8«ll  „ot 
•bus,  in  a  manner  more  emphaic  and  formal  M;*"*"*""''  *''"  "  ™«bt  be  read 
porting,  that  he  wished  this  d  clara.  o„  o    hts  to  bP  "".""'""^^  "*»""*'  P"" 
alteration.    And,  at  his  next  r^li   hi  k        u      ?  ^^  ^^^^°  «»  authority  for  the 
he  made  the  duplicate,  anXaSr^xhibrfhs'f.  "'"'  i.!!'  '^'^-S'-t  from  wh  ch 
brought  it  to  me,  to  show  that  "  IsS*  wasl  Z  .  t"  '°  ^"  ^''*'"*'  '" »'"  "om, 
was  plainly  "1815."  ^   was  a  mistake  in  copying.    The  draught 

.ho?d7oir/itrsrpi:ret\,!;eT:'  ;t^  '•'"^^"^  -« -^^-^  that  it 

sel,  with  the  sole  exception  of  he  da  el'°  *''«  P^^'  '^'P""'""'  ^y  Mr.  Ru 
Mr.  Russell's  special  request  '       ""  ''^  ^"'''^^  ""'''•fi«d  according ,« 

Bre^nt  recVifurate'^S  ctVet^J^'l  tit';  "j^"'  r". '"  "^  --  -^  Mr. 
20th  April,,whe„  Mr.  BrenrSe  certab Tnn^r"'^"'*  ^'-  ""«"'"»  O"  «be 
^e«er.     The  recapitulation  in  su^^^S'reX  tS  ^SZ  i^lSrS^ 


158 

RiiiUll,  that  hit  inqwlrhi*  were  wholly  without  ihe  mithofUy  of  any  other  per- 
son !  that  his  objert  wattoknow  whether  Mr.  Rumell  could  aiid  would  futniih 
th«  letter,  If  It  should  be  wonted,  and  if  he  ihould  be  apjJI^d  to  for  it ;  and 
that  Mr.  Rumll  told  Mr.  Brent  that  he  could  and  wouU  furniih  it  to  the  Pre- 
•ident  I  and  that  he  ftirther  told  Mr.  Brent,  (on  Mr.  Bmnt'i  intiuiry,)  that  Mr. 
Floyd  had  made  hit  (lecond)  motion  on  hie  (Mr.  RuMelli)  euggeition.  Mr. 
Ruijell  nitenled  to  the  correctnew  of  thii  recapitulation,  explaining  the  last  ob- 
•ervatlon  by  taying,  thai  Mr.  Floyd,  before  he  nioTed  the  eecond  call,  ailwd 
him  If  he  could  give  him  (Mr.  Floyd)  a  copy  of  the  letter,  and  that  he  (Mr. 
Ruiaell)  declined,  %pd  told  Mr.  Floyd  that  If  he  wlehed  a  copy  ho  muit  roova  a 

'•*"^''**  JOHN  BAILEY. 

Woihinglm,  loth  Jttly,  nVl. 


From  the  Ifalional  InleUigmrer  of  A»gusl  7,  1822. 
TO  THE  EDITORS. 

In  the  reply  printed  in  the  National  Intelligencer  of  the  1 7th 
ultimo,  to  a  publication  by  Mr.  Jonathan  Russell  in  the  Boston 
Statesman,  of  the  27th  of  June  preceding,  it  was  stated  that  the 
subject  would  be  resumed  in  another  paper.  That  paper,  »vitU 
others  elucidating  all  the  topics  of  general  interest  discussed  in  Mr. 
Russell's  letter,  has  been  prepared,  but  will  be  presented  to  the 
public  in  another  form.  Mr.  Russell's  letter  from  Pans,  of  11th 
February,  1816,  was  ostensibly  a  vindication  of  himself  and' his  mo- 
tives against  an  accusation  instituted  by  himself— ^elf-defence 
against  self-impeachment !  The  substance  was,  a  secret  impeach- 
ment of  the  majority  of  his  colleagues  before  their  common  supe- 
rior  authority.  That  accusation  he  saw  fit,  during  the  late  session 
of  Congress,  to  bring  before  the  Legislative  Assembly  of  which  he 
was  a  member,  and  shortly  afterwards  to  produce  before  the  pub- 
lic, in  newspapers,  nt  Philadelphia  and  at  Boston.  If,  in  meeting 
this  accusation  wherever  it  has  appeared  visible  and  tangible,  I  have 
been  compelled  to  present  myself  more  than  once  to  the  public  at- 
tention, it  has  been  under  circumstances  deeply  mortifying  to  me, 
and  assuredly  not  of  my  own  choosing.  I  h?ve  been  called  to  re- 
pel a  succession  of  charges,  supported  by  the  name  of  a  man  high 
in  the  confidence  of  the  country  ;  an  associate  in  the  trust  which 
he  substantially  accuses  me  of  having  betrayed,  and  implicating  the 
character,  conduct,  and  memory  of  other  citizens  employed  on  the 
same  service.  It  has,  indeed,  recently  been  suggested  that  this  is 
a  mere  personal  controversy  between  Mr.  Russell  and  me,  with 
which  the  public  have  no  concern.  And  why  was  it  brought  before 
the  public  ?  So  long  as  the  purport  of  Mr.  Russell's  letter  was 
merely  propagated  in  whispers— just  hinted  in  anonymous  para- 
graphs of  newspapers,  and  hoped  not  to  be  true  in  charitable  letters 
from  Washington,  however  infamous  the  imputations  with  which  it 
was  occasionally  bound  up  and  circulated,  a  man  conscious  of  his 
ianocence,  and  secure  ia  the  uprightness  of  his  intentions,  might 


1A9 

overlook  and  deipi»«  it.     Bat,  when  made  the  object  of  two  «ic. 
ce«ive  legislative  c«  In  for  obiolete  and  forgotten  tl ocumpntr  t..Vm 
peted    l,eforeh.,nd  throushout  the  Union. ^,f;;:h^ut;S■ 
«ure,  wh.ch  w«re  to  b!^t  a  reputation  worthies,  iftbrestimaUon 
of  it^oMCMor,  if  not  unsullied  ;  when  pertinaciousfvTbtnidM 
upon  rongre^  „u.l  upon  the  nation,  by  a  cSllea«ue?„  fte  tA„,a^^ 
•on  denounced,  by  a  part.c.pator  in  the  act  reprobated  by  hhZTf 
pr  nc,p,e,  a„d  dut.e,  of  a  higher  order  than  those  of  mer7„ero„d 
dehcacy  commanded  me  to  solicit  the  attention,  first,  .f  the  Housa 
of  Representat.veH.  and,  secondly,  of  the  natio^.  to  my  defen"  "J 
hat  ofmy  CO  leagues,  arraigned  before  them.     Th7defence  ha^ 

to  whirh  r'"  •'''  ''T'^y  ?t''^  '^"^^^  ^"'"^  limits  rLattaet 
o  which  It  IS  opposed  ;  and  if,  in  the  course  of  it,  the  attack     Je If 
has  necessarily  been  made  to  recoil  upon  the  accuser  it  w  1  becausL 
nothing  could  more  forcibly  tend  to  show  the  futility  of  The  charm 
than  an  exposition  of  the  conduct  of  him  who  produced  them    Tp! 
mo  then  be  permitted  to  say,  that  this  is  not  a  mere  persoTaJ  con 
troversy  between  Mr.  Russell  and  me,  with  which  the  DubHrhT; 
tronTrh"-   /'^''^-^-  begin,  nor  can  it  so  end     Xi^^^^^^^^^ 
tion  at  Ghent  was  an  event  of  great  importance  in  the  hi3  of 
tbw  Union.     It  was  conducted  by  five  Co.timissionem  rl/itf^?    r 
different  sections  of  the  country.^   One  of  tKreat^bS^^^^  tl 
the  entrusbng  of  critical  negotiations  to  CommZlSXlw  •^. 

catise.  Of  these  dissentjons  I  believe  there  were  as  few  at  Ghent 
as  in  any  negotiation,  by  Commissioners  of  equal  number  uDonhif 
torical  record.     Until  the  last  winter,  I  had  flatte^ed^^Vsdf  51; 

Ho?,! /*r''  'f '''''''''  *^^^P'"'°»  ^'^  b««"  of  a  charaXwhth 
It  would  have  been  ever  necessary  to  disclose  to  the  world  l„ 
making  the  diausht  of  th«  inin»  uL^ .*•  o^  u  f.!    '"f  '^'^'J^:     '" 


place  ^i:v^::;r^::::^7:^^^:i:j^:^^:^j^ 

enes.)  1  he  draught  having  been  passed  round  to  all  the  members  nf 
Oi^e  mission  for  revisal,  was  brought  back  to  me  by  MTuussen 
with  an  alteration,  ,vhich  he  said  was  desired,  not  by  h.mbutbv 
Mr.  Clay,  to  say.  instead  of  "«,e  ojeredr  "a  majoritv  of  us  d^ 
ermined  to  offer."     Now,  although  the  ^xpressSs  S  used  h  ?d 
been  strictly  correct,  and  the  offer  had  beJn  actual  v  made  hv  f'^t 
whole  mission,  I  readily  assented  to  the  ..IteSn^rLl  5' 
that  Mr.  Russell's  purpose  was  to  lay  it  as  a  corner-stone  TfZr^ 
fabrics,  either  of  self-accusation  and' defence,  or  of  social  dfS 

thatTrrh^'     ""  ""^'  "^''^S^"  ''  *«  «  «elf.contradicUon  of  mine 
that  I  say  the  proposition  was  made  by  the  whole  mission   -.m^  11* 

»n  the  joint  letter  of  25th  December,  it  was  said    TmZku  Z^^ 

tTA  ':"  '^''  \'-     «"^ "'«  contradiction  i^oft;  ownSinf^"" 

0?thtthT  Mr7u^^;n"'^^'r^  'rheofler^rtde  . 

yy  in^  wuoje.  JVlr.  Russell  proposed  another  amendment,  for  which 


160 


he  neither  mentioned,  nor  did  I  then  suspect  his  motive.    The  let- 
ter says,  "We  contended  that  the  whole  treaty  of  1783  must  be 
considered  as  one  entire  and  permanent  compact,  not  hable,  hke 
ordinary  treaties,  to  be  abrogated  by  a  subsequent  war  between  the 
parties  to  it."     Mr.  Russell's  proposal  was  to  change  tli|kword 
must  for  might— to  read    "  we  contended  that  the  wholi^treaty 
might  be  considered,"  &c.     But  to  this  alteration  I  objected  that  it 
would  not  state  the  facts  as  they  were— that  we  had  actually  con- 
tended that  it  must,  and  not  that  it  might  be  so  considered  ;  and  Mr. 
Russell  immediately  yielded  to  this  objection,  which  he  could  not 
dispute.     He  assented  to  this  passage  of  the  letter,  as  it  was  first 
written,  and  as  it  now  stands.     The  use  which  he  even  then  pro- 
posed to  make  of  the  alteration,  if  it  had  been  admitted,  I  now  per- 
ceive, but  had  thru  t6o  sincere  a  regard  for  Mr.  Russell  to  surmise. 
Tliere  were,  in  the  course  of  the  negotiation,  many  difierences 
of  opinion,  and  many  votes  taken  ;  but,  excepting  this  solitary  case, 
no  one  member  of  the  mission  thought  it  necessary  to  record  the' 
fact,  or  to  make  it  known  even  to  the  Aitierican  government.     As 
all  the  members  of  the  mission  had  finally  concurred  in  the  pro- 
position upon  which  the  vote  was  taken,  and  had  signed  their  nan'  ^g 
to  it  in  the  communications  to  the  British  plenipotentiaries  ;  and  ..s 
there  was  then  no  allegation  by  any  one  that  it  was  not  fully  war- 
ranted by  our  instructions,  1  certainly  thought  there  was  as  little 
necessity  for  announcing  to  our  government  that  a  vote  had  been 
taken  upon  this  proposition,  as  upon  any  other  question  which  had 
occurred— yet,  when  it  was  desired  by  any  member  of  the  mission, 
that  the  proposition  to  which  all  had  pledged  their  names  and  sig- 
natures to  the  adverse  party  and  the  world,  should  be  recorded,  as 
having  been  previously  determined  by  a  majority   only,  I  could 
have  no  objection  to  its  being  so  stated.     Mr.  Clay  did  not  think  it 
necessary  either  to  accuse  or  to  defend  himself  for  having  been  iu 
the  minority.     The  course  pursued  by  Mr.  Russell  was  neither 
candid  towards  his  colleagues,  nor  friendly  to  the  liberties  of  his 
country.     Under  the  guise  of  accusing  himself,  h%  became  the  se- 
cret delator  of  his  colleagues.     But  his  letter  from  Paris  was  not 
confined  to  its  professed  object  of  vindicating  himself  for  his  vote 
upon  the  Mississippi  proposition.     He  travelled  out  of  the  record, 
and  racked  his  ingenuity  and  his  learning  to  refute  the  principle 
assumed  at  the  proposal  of  Mr.  Clay  himself— the  principle  upon 
which  no  vote  had  been  taken  in  the  mission  ;  but  which  had  been 
adopted  and  inserted  in  the  note  of  10th  November,  1814,  by  una- 
nimous consent ;  the  principle  that,  from  the  nature  of  the  fishing 
liberties,  smd  the  peculiar  character  of  the  treaty  of  1783,  they 
were  not  abrogated  by  the  war.    And  now,  seven  years  afterwards, 
when,  by  the  mainienance  of  that  very  principle,  we  had,  in  a  sub* 
sequent  negotiation  with  Great  Britain,  secured  in  a  new  compro- 
raise,  without  abandoning  the  piinciple,  the  whole  essential  interest 
m  the  fishing  liberties  ;  when,  by  the  same  negotiation,  we  had  ob- 
tamed  the  abandonment  by  Great  Britain  of  her  own  ground  o{ 


161 

a  cali  from  the  House  of  RpnMof  *  ?   entirely  drawn  up  by  me  • 

the  Ghent  document^     Mr  Tus  dl  LT  'T^^  ^''  *^«  ^^^'duTof 

t.on  whether  his  old  dentaS'  f  ^^.^f./^P  ^^^^^       «-  op- 

witb  the  majonty,  shall  or  shall  not  beTmm„n-    ri**^'''*^*^'"*"* 

deliberately  decides  that  it  shallTJ^d  lZ?^Tff  '''i^^  «°"«' 

repose,  till  he  has  brought  before  CnJZ        ?'u'^  ^"'^  '^'^'ers  no 

of  attainder  against  his  ell  eague^  new  vam„Tf  /  '  "^''T^  ^^'  •»•» 

passions  of  the  day  :  it  is  now  tnn  f  T  ?   ^^^^  °  '"'*  *•»«  PoMtical 

personal  controve^y  between  MrRt'^.H  'V^''  '^''  "  »  "^re 

public  have  no  concern:  ^'^"  ""*"  •"«  '^'th  ^Wch  the 

^-^^^:Z^^  ^-is,  that  .e  ..e  ./, 

degree  pernicious  to  oneTf  the  m^f  '        ^  '^''  '"     ^  ^'g^est 
Union.  *Tbe  pretension  that  tr  on  v'tS?l'"''^u^^^^  °^  this 
.       temporary  grant  of  the  Brhish  kin^   rivll  M  ^^T.^^^  *'^«''  » 
was  equally  unfounded  in  Ewand  fn  ?act      Th.      *"'  P''^^"'"^' 
for  the  averment  of  its  extinction     thJ  P^  ''^^°°  assigned 

and  all  articles  bf  every  trea'v~W  "'  "^'i'S^'  ^  «"  ^''eatieT 
tions  ;  and  if  it  were^'wou,/-'  warrnTTh:'  '^  ^ '^"  °^»«- 
from  It.     The  character  and  vaL  of  ?hi  conclusion  drawn 

the  Mississippi,  are  in  the  Tetter  from  Paris  Sv"'"  '^''''"^  ^^ 
and  perverted  by  exaeeeration  tk  [  t^"^  m'srepresented 
is  eq'ually  misreJrS?  rpervert^^^^^^^^^  fi^hinV  liberty 

possession  of  this  liberty  has  twiclbeen  tL  P"''^^^?''^- '  ^^« 
which  wars  with  Great  Britain  hnv!  h  ^."'''""S  hmge  upon 

ther  of  those  occasTons  ZlrtZtT  ^°°f '"^^^d-  If  Spon^ei" 
letter  had  prevailed  wTth  theTme  £  ZlT^  '"  ^''  «"«««"'» 
the  Newfoundland,  Gulf  of  St  EeTeTn^T^^^^  "7  "^^'*  i° 
would  have  been  lost.  The  same  nirnn'  ^^^rador  fishery, 
«gai„.  I  undertake  to  proretLrrr"'^''''^P''"'*»'^'y«"«e 
calls  it.  of  his  letter,  is  in  all  L  ''r^^^^^  ZfZT/'  ''•  ^''  ^"«««» 
pitious  to  the  cause  of  his  country  ""^^""^^'^  ^  't  wx-  unpro- 

the?;;^rn::::;i^^^^^^^^  this  controversy  fn. 

ihe  Ghent  documLfs  called  Kj  the  reso^tL'"  ^.H  '"S'"'^'^* 
Representatives  ;  the  message  of^thTprSn  7"!  ^  »  '^""^^  «*' 
Mr.  Russell's  letters  and  my  Remarks  hifn„M  ?  **>«  ««"se,  with 
in  the  Boston  Statesman  LH^Tn'''P"^''c«t'«n  of  27th  June 

tional  Intelligence  !  with'other  naoVr';  '"Tf-  ^''^'"^^^  '»  ^^e  S 
tations  of  Mf.   Ru^eliral'^Sis^    g^^J '^^^f^^th^ 

treaties  and  treaty  stipulations  ;  the  vaL  of  tlJ^-  ^  """•  "Po*-* 
gation  to  the  British,  and  of  the  fishinTliL^f  ?  Mississippi  navi- 
by  which  we  have  hdd  andlti  I  tWem  %lrthr'  '''  "^'^^ 
any  difference  of  opinion  betwPPn  f hi  a  •  '  ^here  ever  was 
at  Ghent  upon  rneasC  n  S"hev  alSl^  P'«"'P«t-^n"«nes 
never  have  been  made  known  to  the  oubifl'"^  concurred,  would 
an  e,ual  share  of  re.poi.sibiirt/rforJilTchX  ha^tot'  ct' 


WW 


tented  auJ  grateful  for  the  aatisfactioD  of  our  common  country  widb 
the  general  result  of  our  services,  I  had  no  private  interests  or 
feelings  to  indulge,  at  the  expense  of  others,  and  my  earnest  desire 
would  have  been,  to  have  seen  in  every  member  of  the  mission, 
for  the  rest  of  my  days,  no  other  than  a  friend  and  a  brother.  Disap* 
pointed  in  this  wish,  my  next  hope  is,  thiii.  even  the  discords  of  Ghent 
may  be  turned  to  the  promotion  of  fiiture  harmony  in  the  Union. 
From  the  nature  of  our  federative  constitution,  it  is  probable  that 
hereafter,  as  heretofore,  the  most  important  negotiations  with  for> 
eign  powers  will  be  committed  to  joint  missions  of  several  mem- 
bers. To  every  such  mission  nnd  to  all  its  mtsmbers  the  Ghent 
negotiation  will  uflbrd  instructive  lessons,  as  well  by  its  union  as 
by  Its  divisions.  The  conduct  of  Mr.  Russell  will  aflord  a  negative 
instruction  of  deep  import.  It  will  teach  them  to  beware  of  leaguing 
invidious  and  imaginary  sectional  or  party  feelings  with  the  pur< 
poses  of  the  enemy,  against  our  rights — of  assuming  the  argument 
of  the  enemy  against  ourselves — of  proclaiming,  without  necessity, 
differences  of  opinion  upon  rejected  propositions — of  secret  de- 
nunciations in  the  shape  uf  self-vindication — of  crude  and  shallow 
dissertations  against  essential  interests  and  just  cl&ims,  and  of  in- 
terpolating  public  papers  to  adapt  tbem  to  the  purposes  of  the  mo- 
ment. It  »vill  tench  them  to  have  n  higher  sense  of  the  rights  and 
liberties  of  this  nation,  than  to  believe  them  to  lis  held  nt  the  will 
of  H  British  king ;  and  it  will  warn  them  to  turn  their  talents 
to  better  uses  than  that  of  sacrificing  the  essential  interests  of  their 
country.  These  are  public  concerns  of  great  moment,  and  n  just 
understanding  of  them  in  every  part  of  the  Union  is  indissohibly 
connected  with  a  just  estimate  of  the  conduct  of  the  majority  of 
the  Ghent  mission,  hold  forth  to  public  censure  by  one  of  their  col- 
leagues. For  a  view  of  the  whole  ground  it  will  be  indispensable 
to  compare  the  documents  of  the  negotiation  with  the  references  of 
both  parties  to  them  in  the  discussion,  and  to  that  end  it  will  be  ne- 
cessary that  they  should  all  be  included  in  one  publication.  I  ask 
of  the  candour  of  my  countrymen  to  be  assured,  that  this  publica- 
tion will  be  addressed  to  no  temporary  purposes^  to  no  party  feel- 
ing, to  no  sectional  passions,  but  to  the  whole  nation  and  to  pos- 
terity, upon  objects  which,  although  implicating  immediately  only 
the  conduct  of  the  negotiators  at  Ghent,  are  of  deep  and  perma- 
nent interest  to  themselves. 

JOHN  qUiNCY  ADAMS, 

August  5,  18S2.  . 


«»i 


163 
FURTHER  STRICTURES 

ON  MR,  RUSSELL'S  REPRESENTATIONS  AND  ESTIMATES. 

/.  Jyavigatiim  of  the  Mississippi^Worthless  to  the  British. 
Inthe  ioint  despatch  of  the  25th  of  December,  1814  to  th«  S*. 
cretary  of  State,  signed  by  all  the  members  of  the  American  mis' 

wJi.h  »h?*"''  '  TJl^r  ""''  '^•^^^  '^^  *•>«  circumstanceruDder" 
which  the  proposal  had  been  made  to  the  British  plenipotenUaries 
md  rejected  by  them,  of  a  stipulation,  confirming  the  pJovS  of 
he  treaty  of  1783,  in  regard  to  the  fishing  rights  and  SeS  o' 
the  people  of  the  United  States,  and  to  thi  right  ortheBrhUK  * 
navigate  the  Mississippi.     It  was  there  stated  fhataj„  the  W 
ncan  mission,  in  answer  to  the  notification  from  the  British  that 
he.r  government  did  not  intend  to  grant  anew  the  fishing  1  berties 
had  asserted  Ihe  principle,  that  from  the  peculiar  chraderof  the 
reaty  of  1783,  and  ihe  nature  of  those  rights  and  liberties  no  fur 
ther  stipulation  had  been  deemed  necessaFv  by  the  eoveJnCl  ^ 
the  United  States,  to  entitle  them  to  tbeVulf  enfovment  oTall  ff 

10th  of  November,  1814,  a  project  of  a  treaty  containing  no  arU- 
cle  or  stipulation  on  the  subject ;  after  the  BriS^h  plenipSfeStiaries 
had.  on  the  20th  of  November,  returned  that  project  with  alteraS 
proposed  by  them  one  of  which  was  a  stipulation  that  bS  S 
.lects  should,  at  all  times,  have  access  to  the  river  Mississippi  and 
the  free  navigation  of  the  river— to  meet  this  demand,  and  to  olare 
both  points  beyond  all  future  controversy,  a  majority  of  the  mission 
determmed  to  offer  to  admit  an  article  confirming  both  rights 
_  Nothing  can  be  more  clear  and  explicit  than  this  statiment  that 
the  determination  of  the  majority  was  taken  after  the  26^  of  Jvl 
remfcer,  1814.     Yet  directly  in  the  face  of  it,  Mr.  Russell.ln  the 
Boston  Statesman  of  11  June,  affirms  that  at  the  mission  meetiZ 
of  the  28th  and  29th  of  November,  ••  whatever  might  ha?e  been 
"■aid  in  relation  to  the  Mississippi,  on  account  of  the  alteration 
respecting  it,  made  in  the  8(h  article  of  our  project,  by  the  Bri 
"  tish  plenipotentiaries,  no  new  resolution  was  there  taken  by  the 
♦'  Jimencan  mtsston  to  offer  the  navigation  of  that  river  for  the  f-hino- 
l[privilese     This  offer  was  ma<(e  on  the  1st  of  December.'in  ^-i,? 
tue  of  the  vote  taken  before  the  10th  of  November,  and  which 
'a  °'^'?°"Sn  suspended,  had  not  been  reconsidered  or  cancelled  '♦ 
And  he  adds,  "  I  am  the  more  confident  in  this  statement  as  I  di* 
"  tinctly  remember  that  when  that  offer  was  actually  made  it  was 
"  unexpected  by  a  majoritv  of  thk  mission.     Mr.  Bayard,  in  re- 
turning home  from  the  house  of  the  British  ministers,  where  tL 
"  conference  of  the  Istof  December  had  been  holden,  very  exoli 
!!  <^U.'y  Jeclared  to  Mr.  Clay  and  to  me,  his  dissatiafacUon  that  this 
^^  otter  had  been  made  without  his  having  been  recently  consulted  iu 
relation  to  %t.     I  dare,  in  regard  to  these  facts,  to  appeal  to  the 
recollection  of  Mr.  Clay,  in  confirmation  of  my  own  '' 


164 

Marvellous  indeed  I  Ho  then  this  wonder-working  and  terrible 
pronoMl,  this  portentouR  •acrifice  of  the  peace,  comfort,  and  Hafety 
of  the  western  world,  wax  actually  made  in  full  conference  with 
t.sc  Bntjsh  pl«nipoteiitiuiie8,  not  by  n  miyority,  but  l>y  a  MinoniTV, 
of  the  American  mission.     And  Mr.  Bayard,  who  had  chKnged  bia 
tnmd,  stood  bv,  and  saw  the  proposal  made,  heard  it  discussed, 
•aw  It  entered  on  the  protocol  m  the  proposal  ot  the  American 
plenipotentiaries,  and  afterwnnis  signed  a  letter  declaring  he  had 
A**  J  ^J?*^*'<'"  '0  '' ;  while  all  the  time  he  was  not  for,  but  against  it. 
And  Mr.  Clay  and  Mr.  Uussell,  who  from  before  the  10th  of  No- 
vember had  known  the  change  of  Mr.  Bayard's  mind,  they  too. 
witno5is«d  this  insolent  usurpation,  by  the  minority,  of  the  mm% 
and  rights  of  the  whole  mission,  without  daring  to  avow  an  objec- 
tion to  it  either  in  the  presence  of,  or  in  correspondence  with,  the 
British  pinnipotentiiiries,  or  in  the  meetings  of  the  mission  itself. 
Mr.  Bayard  contents  himself  with  whispering  his  dissatisfaction  to 
Mr  Clay  and  Mr.  Russell ;  and  they,  instead  of  vindicating  the  in- 
aulted  rights  ot  the  miijority,  rosorvo  it  as  a  secret,  which  Mr.  Rui- 
soll,  seven  years  after  the  death  of  Mr.  Bayard,  divulges  to  the 
world. 

The  anecdote  is  an  outrage  on  the  memory  of  Mr.  Bayard.    Mr 
Clay  will  not  respond  alfirmatively  to  the  appeal  of  Mr.  Russell.' 
I  have  no  occasion  tor  appealing  in  this  case  to  the  recollection  of 
any  one.  I  speak  not  only  from  the  express  and  positive  testimony 
of  the  joint  desmtch  of  26  December,  1814,  but  from  the  record 
of  a  private  diary,  kopt  by  me  at  the  time,  in  which  are  minuted 
from  day  to  day,  with  all  the  accuracy  and  detail  in  my  power,  the 
proceedings  as  well  of  the  mission,  as  of  both  missions  in  their  con- 
ferences :  and  I  now  affirm,  that  on  the  20th  of  November,  1814 
after  a  discussion  of  more  than  five  liours,  in  which  every  member 
of  the  mission,  except  Mr.  Russell,  took  part,  a  vott  was  taken 
upon  thR  proposal  of  Mr.  Gallatin,  to  accept  the  proposed  altera- 
tion o(  the  8th  article  of  the  project,  prssented  by  the  British 
plenipotentiaries,  relating  to  the  navigation  of  the  Mississippi  ad- 
ding  to  It  a  counter  stipulation  for  securing  the  fishing  liberties 
within  exclusive  British  jurisdiction  ;  that  a  majority  of  the  mis- 
sion voted  for  this  proposal,  and  that  Mr.  Gallatin  should  prepare 
for  consideration  the  next  day,  an  amendment  to  tha  8th  article  con- 
formably ;— that  on  the  aiUh  of  November  Mr.  Gallatin  did  pro- 
duce  this  amendment,  which,  after  another  long  discussion   was 
agreed  to,  and  was  the  same  ottered  to  the  British  plenipotentiaries 
as  appears  by  the  protocol  of  the  1st  of  December,  1814     It  was 
to  this  vote  ot  the  majority,  and  to  this  alone,  that  the  joint  des- 
patch  of  25  December,  1814,  referred  ;  and  it  was  to  this  rote 
thus  stated  upon  the  lace  of  the  despatch,  that  Mr.  Russell  referred 
in  his  separate  letter  of  the  same  date,  when  he  said  that  he  had 
been  oti  that  occasion  in  the  minority.     Yet  it  was  not  without  rea- 
son that  III  my  tonner  remarks  upon  his  letters  I  said,  he  gave  it. 
ttHiy  be,  u  silent  vole  against  the  proposal .  for.  from  the  minutp« 


160 

member;  „nd  Mr  it.lnU  ^^  '"*  ^n-  ^^^  '"'*«  «'' the  fifth 

theae  op^rnit^ei  0  Z^^^^         not  unmlhng  to  avail  himself  of 

'     K  I  rep<.at  tC  5'«  ♦"!  *  "o'vever  that  fact  may 

pr-JMed  in  Mr  R  ;liv  nrJ   ^""'•""'''  ""Pres-ion,  which  he  ex- 
Ei.,  that  he%^r.f  1;^^^^^^^^^^^  -tradicted  hy 

lOth  of  November     Th„^^^i^^^  taken  before  the 

not  one  worj  of  the  vl  ?r'"*;  i^'^''\''^  »^'  ~^^^^  December,  say. 
had  Mr.  R     cuJ  :p^^^^^^^  of  November  \  nl 

to  it  whatever.  X^  sXn l^t  iL^f  December,  any  reference 
confound  them  together  X^lhl  J  "''''"  ^T  '"'*^^''  attempted  to 
position  wlS  iTm^d;  th.  nV"'^"!"  °^"''««"S«R«in«tthe  pro- 
Ised  by  Mr  Clay  aeni?  ;  Ut  wf  T"*"'  *"'""  ""^  ""^^^^  »'«''  »>««« 

t«e  of  the  vote  Men  e^L'Tl.rLrm:!!:."  ^"°™""  """"»"■  "-^  "'• 
«.  fonl^""^  "^  '"^  ""'  *»  ''/""  ">«  >Oth  of  November  i. 

the  article  d  ed  by  ^'r  UusseTin^hlT  f''Sf  ^^  ^''  ^«"«*'"  ^«« 
last.    As  it  was  finally  set  lie    t  °''°°  ^'"'"T "  °^27th  June 


01 


166 

The  ailicle  was  diecussed  further,  chiefly  bchvcen  Mr.  Gallatin 
and  Mr.  Clay,  at  meetings  of  the  mission  op  the  31st  of  October, 
•no  an  the  Ist,  2d,  and  3d  of  November. 

I  bad  till  then  taken  no  part  in  the  discussion.  The  following 
«re  extracts  from  my  diary  of  subsequent  dates,  when,  at  meeting? 
of  the  miraion,  all  the  articles  of  the  draught  were  discussed. 

4  November,  1814.  "  The  great  difficulty  was  with  regard  to 
**  the  tisberies.  Mr.  Gallatin's  draught  proposed  the  rent  ival  of  the 
*'  right  of  fishing  and  drying  fish  within  the  British  jurisdiction,  to- 
"  gether  with  the  right  of  the  British  to  navigate  the  Missiosippi, 
*•  both  taken  from  the  peace  of  1 783.  I  was  in  favour  of  this.  Mr. 
*'  Clay  has  an  insuperable  objection  to  the  renewal  of  the  right  lo 
*'  the  British  of  navigating  the  Mississippi.  I  then  declared  myself 
*•  prepared  either  to  propose  Mr.  Gallatin's  article,  or  to  take  the 
"  ground*  that  the  whole  right  to  the  fisheries  was  recognised  as  a 
"  part  of  our  national  independence  ;  that  it  could  not  be  abrogated 
"  by  the  war.  and  needed  no  stipulation  ^br  its  renewiU.  Mr.  Clay 
"  was  averse  to  either  of  the  courses  proposed,  and  said  that  after 
♦'  all  if  the  British  plenipotentaries  should  insist  upon  this  point,  we 
"  should  all  finally  sign  the  treaty  without  the  provision  respect- 
"  ing  the  fishery.  Mr.  Russell  expressed  some  doubt  whether  he 
*•  would  sign  without  it ;  and  Isexplicitly  declared  that  I  would  not, 
♦'  without  further  instructions — I  could  not  say  that  I  would,  with 
♦'  them." 

6  November,  1814.  "  The  article  concerning  the  fisheries  and 
"  the  navigation  of  the  Mississippi  as  drawn  by  Mr.  Gallatin  was 
*'  further  debated,  and  the  vote  taken  upon  it.  Mr.  Clay  and  Mr. 
«  Russell  voted  against  it— Mr.  Bayard,  Mr.  Gallatin,  and  myself 
«'  for  proposing  it.  After  the  vote  was  taken,  Mr.  Clay  said  that 
*' he  should  not  sign  the  communication  by  which  the  proposal 
♦'  would  be  made." 

7  November,  1814.  "Mr.  Clay  proposed  a  paragraph  for  th« 
♦«  note  to  be  sent  to  the  British  plenipotentiiines,  as  a  substitute  in- 
"  stead  of  the  article  respecting  the  fisheries  and  the  navigation  of 
«*  the  Mississippi,  which  had  passed  by  vote  on  Saturday.  Mr. 
«  Clay  said,  that  in  declaring  at  that  time  that  he  should  not  sign 
«'  the  note  accompanying  the  project,  if  it  included  Mr.  Gallatin's 
"  article,  he  had  not  intended  that  it  should  in  any  manner  affect 
"  the  minds  of  any  of  ua.  If  the  article  should  be  proposed  and 
"  accepted,  and  a  treaty  otherwise  not  exceptionable  should  be 
«'  obtainable  he  might  perhaps  ultimately  accede  to  it ;  but  the 
««  object  was  in  his  view  so  important,  that  he  could  not  reconcile 
«« it  to  himself  to  agree  in  making  the  proposal.  His  proposed  pa- 
"  ragraph  took  the  ground  which  I  had  originally  suggested  that  all 
«*  the  fishery  rights  formed  a  part  of  the  recogiution  of  our  Inde- 
««  pendence,  and  as  such,  were  by  our  instructions  excludfu  from 
"  discussion.  I  said  I  should  have  preferred  the  proposal  of  Mr. 
"  Gallatm'a  article,  as  placing  the  subject  out  of  controversy ;  but 
"  that  as  we  could  not  be  unanimous  for  that,  I  was  willi>;.a:  to  take 


167 

"5 r  ?f'  paragraph,  by  which  we  should  rc-orre  all  our  riehti 
and  at  the  same  time  execute  our  instniriinna    m     »  °"^5  « -f* 

Mr.  Russell  has  taken  infinite  oains  to  faatr     «  i    •     . 

ci  K,  and  Its  consequences.    He  has  represenlc.i  it  as  on  the  oart 

ed  it  wftrhot'c:f  In"  '^',f  ^''"  °^"'y  ^^""'•'y'  fo"-  having  assert! 
;m..;7-  ^  ^^""y  colleagues  who  are  yet  willine  to  bear  the 

imputation,  not  as  a  preteo:t,  but  with  sincerity  of  heart!  and  a,  very 
zealous  believers  in  it.     But  were  every  other  Hying  member  of 

ini\Tl    'V V       '^'"'"''T^'  ^hat  they  assumed  this  principle  only 

?de  ed  it  onlv  .r.7'.""''''  f"^  ^^  «  P^'''^'^  *>"*  ^^at  th'ey  col 
^P?  At  ^  •'  ^^^  '^''^"'"  °^  a  visionary,  I  would  answer—the 
dream  of  the  visionary  was  an  honest  dream     He  believed  what  he 

;t"fith:l"'Norfh-    f/f'»  ™Jsht  confidently  add   •rh^tl'ed 

t^ons  with  Greit  R^i?        "?  ^  °'l^  ""^^^^  P^"''^'  ^^^^  ^^e  negotia- 
tions with  Great  Britain  since  the  peace,  and  the  convention  of 

ibi  J^""'*?/"'^^!"  °^'^.''''^'  ^'^^t  '^  t^«  P'-i^ciple  was  assu-  J  by 
tZr;?nifest^d  r;l  «''--P-™-e:that  spirit  was  much  mor^ 
strongly  manifested  by  the  majo  ity,  and  particularly  by  me  in  ac-    ' 

Br  ti'sh  nIPn inof"^''^ -^  never  deny,  that  from  the  time  when  the 
Kntish  plenipotentiaries  notified  to  us,  that  their  government  did 
no  intend  to  grant  the  fishing  liberties  without  an  equivaTont  I 
felt  an  inexpressible  solicitude  for  their  preservation^  I  have  al- 
ready  remarked  thatthis  notification  was  made  intermsso  indefinite, 


168 

that  its  object  apparently  was  to  exclucle  us  from  the  whole  of  the 
Wewtoundland,  Gulf  of  St.  Lawrence,  and  Labrador  lisheries.  Mr. 
Kussell  has  not  ventured  to  contest  this  position  ;  nor  could  he 
have  contested  it  with  success.  The  notification,  us  entered  upon 
the  protocol  of  conference  of  8th  August,  1814,  made  up  jointiv 
l»7  both  parties,  was  as  follows  :  »  J        J 

m/k^II®  ^f'*'^^  commissioners  requested  information,  whether 
^^  the  American  commissioners  were  instructed  to  enter  into  nego- 

i.  l!f ''°r  °^}^^  "^"^*'  P°*"^  ^  ^"*  before  they  desired  any  answer, 
^^  they  felt  it  right  to  communicate  the  intentions  of  their  govern- 

'ment  as  to  the  ATorth  American  fisheries,  \'v/..  That  the  British 
''government  did  not  intend  to  grant  to  the  United  States,  gratu- 
•'itously,  the  privileges  formerly  granted  by  treaty  to  them,  of 

Jishtng  wtthtn  (he  limits  of  the  British  sovereignly,  and  of  using 
'  the  shores  of  the  British  territories  for  purposes  connected  with 

the  lishenes."     Wait's  State  Papers,  vol.  9,  p.  330. 
The  remark  upon  it,  made  by  the  American  mission,  in  their 
letter  to  the  Secretary  of  State  of  12th  August,  1814,  was  this  : 

\(  V  "y^?,*^*^^"*  o*"  what  was  considered  by  them  as  waters  pecu- 

^  harly  British,  was  not  stated.     From  the  manner  in  which  they 

'^  brought  this  subject  into  view,  they  seemed  to  wish  us  to  under- 

«  *"":*"**  ^"®y  ^^^^  "ot  anxious  that  it  should  be  discussed,  and 

hat  they  only  intended  to  give  us  notice,  that  these  privileges 
Jiad  ceased  to  exist,  and  would  not  be  again  granted  without  an 

equivalent,  nor  unless  we  thought  proper  to  provide  expressly  in 

the  treaty  ol  peace  for  their  renewal."     Ibid,  p.  321. 

And  what  were  the  limits  of  British  sovereignty,  as  to  the  North 
American  Ijsheries  ?     Ask  the  Abbe  Raynal. 

"According  to  natural  right,   the  fishery  upon  the  great  bank 
ought  to  have  been  common  to  all  mankind  ;  notwithstandine 
which  the  two  powers  that  had  formed  colonies  in  North  Ame- 
nca,  have  made  very  tittle  difficulty  of  appropriating  it  to  them- 
selves.     Spam   who  alone  could  have  any  claim  to  it,  and  who 
romi  the  number  of  her  monks,  might  have  pleaded  the  necessi 
ty  of  asserting  it,  entirely  gave  up  the  matter  at  the  last  peace, 
since  which  time  the  English  and  French  are  the  only  nationi 
that  frequent  these  latitudes."     RaynaVs  History,  book  17. 
Ask  the  commentator  on  the  marine  ordinance  of  Louis  XIV 
V  aim.     Alter  assigning  soundings,  as  the  e*  .;nt  of  sovereign  juris' 
diction,  upon  the  sea,  in  regard  to  fisheries,  he  says  : 

.«  /hot"  f°  ^}^  right  of  fishing  upon  the  Eank  of  Newfoundland,  aa 
hat  island,  which  is,  as  it  were,  the  seat  of  this  fishery,  then  be- 

"  3     ?     7.""^  u  T'  '^  ^^^"^  ^y  ^^'''  ^^••^"^^  that  other  nations 

could  naturally  hsh  there  only  by  virtue  of  the  treaties.     This 

^^  has  since  changed,  by  means  of  the  cession  of  the  Island  of  New- 

''Lm,ux"iv'"?'^f  *?.">«  ^>g'isb.  by  ti.e  treaty  of  Utrecht;  but 
1.0UI3  AlV,  at  the  time  of  that  cession,  made  an  express  reservn- 


16t 


w  ^?1h■:f.elrK^'.'•v!;:^  «^ '^-'"""'■■•■■'> 


ra 

A   J    .      1  «.  ' ""'       ''"'"n,  vol.  !J,  n.  C93. 

.0^°ml?  h^fS"' '"  ""  «'P°"  °»  "■•  •'"teri.  Jf ,.,  Feb™. 

"  .ng  was  approprialid  („  tCnSo  "         °''J<'"')"'«  n|!l'toffi,h- 
pei.ce  enlirdy.  *  ''  ■"""  '"'"''«''  "«  «»"•  "  »«"  (be 

NoUu;.',!;u'':*!.'u,t!,ir,,ve7b"^h  t"""''«=''"''«  f"  "•«»• 

mure  4,„gerou*,  .h„„  ,he  BnS'u'^v'er^  IZ^'"^'"""  ^ 

leot,  the  recogniUon  of  the  rS  •  T.'."'  """"'"S' "'  "w  «quiva. 
co„t,h,ed  i„  the  Ze  treatfof  78?  '  ?  TTl'^^^'^^Wi, 
mpotentiarie,  had demandedlbe  rl'ewa?        ""'"' "' ^"'"'' P''" 

Mr.  Gallatin  was  a  citizen  of  the  W<>a>o..»  r . 

pable  a.  any  other  member  of  the  mS  „f  °  ■7'  ""''  "  '""• 
tial  interest  of  one  quarter  of  the  uS  ,„'  ?""""°S  »"  "sen- 
ther.  I  was,  therefore  ..roVoSLV  '  .'1 ",°""°'' '"'«™"  »f  «»»• 
jected  to  on  a  priS;  of  ZS"""'?,'''  'V  ''"'"«'='«  "fc- 
more  so,  to  hearTr  Ksse  ,T&  ^wT'  """"'v''"^  ««» 
disclosed  by  his  vote  thai  t  »  fiVi,.'  '  "  *"'  "I""'""  had  been 

/«,c^  part  i;fte"c?J„\;'1t'sTfari'M't"'',l'S' *•'■/■ 

legKrtblnllsXTe,  trsTrZ*""^^^^^ 

rence.  tbatit  siCen'ed  U  >oS  ^' ^jT^ZtSTLZZl 


170 

pofled  that  both  interests  should  be  placed  on  the  same  footing  on 
which  they  had  stood  before  the  war.  The  first  and  piuamonot 
dutv  of  the  government  was  to  bring  the  nation  out  of  the  war. 
with  all  Its  great  interests  preserved,  it  was  not  to  gain  m  advan- 
tage for  one  section,  by  the  loss  of  an  advantage  to  another  The 
principle  of  Mr.  Gallatin's  arfirle  was,  that  neither  section  should 
gam  or  lose  by  the  iss.  :  >'  .!n  .  r.  The  principle  of  the  objec- 
tion to  It  was,  that  tha  VV,>st  shoM  gain,  by  the  sacrijtce  of  the  in- 
terest  of  the  East  ;  ,iii(l  Uie  luain  motive  assigned  for  it  was  that 
the  East  was  a  dixajfected  part  of  the  country.  ' 

Much,  too,  was  said  of  the  comparative  value  of  the  two  liber- 
ties ;  not  by  Mr.  Russell,  who  had  not  then  made,  or  at  least  did 
not  disclose,  his  notable  discovery  of  incessant  fogs,  and  their  dele- 
terious effects  upon  the  fisheries.     But  .'juhN    .ore  expressed  on 
one  side,  whether  the  fisheries  were  of  much  value  :  and  opinions 
were  very  conlidently  expressed,  on  the  other,  that  the  navigation 
of  the  Mississippi  would  be  to  the  British  of  no  value.     Neither 
evidence  nor  argument  was  adduced  to  show  the  small  value  of  the 
fisheries.     But  that  the  navigation  of  the  Mississippi  would  be  to 
the  British  of  no  value,  and  of  no  injury  to  us,  was  proved    first 
by  the  experience  of  thirty  years,  from  the  peace  of  1783  to  the 
war  of  1812,  during  which  they  had  possessed  it  without  inconve- 
nience  to  us  or  benefit  to  themselves  ;  secondly,  by  the  apparent 
tact,  that  alter  abandoning  their  claim  to  a  boundary  line  to  the 
Mississippi,  and  consequently  the  power  of  ever  forming  any  settle- 
ment upon  Its  banks,  there   was  neither  present  nor  prospective 
tnteresl,  which  could  make  the  mere  right  of  navigating  it  down- 
wards to  the  ocean,  of  any  value  to  them.     It  was  absolutely  noth- 
ing more  than  a  right  of  travelling  upon  a  highway  ;  and  all  rational 
Foresight,  as  well  as  all  past  experience,  led  to  the  conclusion,  that 
the  privilege  would  remain  as  it  had  been,  merely  nominal.     The 
objections  against  this  reasoning  were  all  speculation  against  fact  • 
all  surmises  of  what  might  be  in  future,  against  the  uniform  tenour 
of  whiif  had  been  before.    When,  afterwiirds,  the  proposition  of  the 
first  of  December  was  actually  made  to  the  British  plenipotentia- 
ries, the  immediate  rejection  of  it  by  their  goyemment,  and  the 
reasons  which  they  assigned  for  rejecting  it,  demonstrated  that  they 
considered  it  at  least  no  equivalent  for  the  part  of  the  fisheries   of 
which  they  intended  to  deprive  us  :  and  their  final  abandonment 
without  any  equivalent,  of  all  claim  to  it,  in  negotiating  the  conven- 
tion of  1818,  completed  the  proof  that  they  had  always  considered 
If  as  a  mere  name,  the  only  use  they  ever  could  make  of  which  was 
to  obtain,  if  they  could,  something  for  renouncing  it.* 

*  I  take  this  opportunity  to  rectify  an  inaccuracy  in  the  statement  of  ray  re- 
marks upon  Mr.  Russell's  letter,  that  at  the  negotiation  of  that  Convention  the 
navigation  of  the  Mississippi  was  not  even  aiked  by  the  British.  On  recurrin* 
to  the  documents  of  that  negotiation,  I  find  that  it  was  asked,  but  easily  aban- 
doned.   Our  NejotiatOTs  were  instructed  not  to  accede  to  it. 


171 

right,  otherwise  than  by  ma  nil  'rnt  k'  f^^?.' ''''  ""'''^"7'^  ^^ 'hi. 
must  and  would  be  as  it  h^.l  hlT  ^'  *V"  '''^  °»'"''e  ofthinKs  it 
value  to  the.„,  and'o'n^d  !«;:";:  ^.f 'Wir''""^  "^'^ '  «' - 
sons  are  now  before  the  public^  and  if  a  LZ  °P'"'""  ""^  ''«»• 
be  given,  I  shall  be  ready  to  -.cknnwlJ  ?k  I  •l"'"'^'"  ^°  ^^^em  '^«'» 
in  entertaining  it.  But  I  sha  I  noH  kS  ^''  ^^""'  '^^^^  '""^''en 
that  was  said  at  Ghent     and  m..I  i        '^''  'V^'^  «"«^*'''.  any  thing 

Mr.Russe...     I  shX^tTatXVn  ^^Ter^'i^f  ^^^  «"«^^^^  '^^ 
ance  to  us   of  the  Mississinni  l?i  •.         ^  ^he  immense  import- 
deeper  sense  of  it  th^ri  Se  .\'\  !rh;'"^"ll''"- •  ^°  "»»  ^^as  « 
tion.    The  navigation  of  tho  miine  il  nf      "**  ^^"''"S  °"  ^^^  n^^^' 
people  of  Germany  and  of  Fn,nc.  "  PpV'"'"""^^  "nportance  to  the 
the  right  to  this  navigation   b^th  ,s'cend  '"""  T.  ^''^'''''  ^y  ^^^ich 
lated  for  all  mankind?*     The  peouTe  of  JPn  ^^^^«"di„g,  is  stipu- 
as  much  as  the  people  of  Fran^ce  or  «/r      ^"'*"*^  ?'«^^«  «"J°/" 
lue  to  us  ?     Is  !t  of  ravv  inj,  ry  to    i^'TT^,    '«  '^  «''  «"y  va- 
ansvver  Mr.  Russell's  pcrSlmiri'     '^'^""not   take  for  an 
his  perpetual  confoundi^rS^  thin  cle  fir.T"''  ""^  '^l  ^"^^^'''"  » 
latm,  which  was  never  propo  ed    o  ie  r/''   '^^'''^    ^  *^''"  ®''' 
mentto  the  8th  article   whi.h  .„!  .'^"'''  ^'th  the  amend- 

his  perpetual  conSng  "f'b  Tb  P^rr/^^^^^  *'.^'?  ''".'  ^^^^^^^  ^ 
*»f  1794.     Mr.  Ru.sell  .-.va  h^T  *"'^"*^  ^d  article  of  the  treaty 

another  memberof  thVXion  3".   'Tk^"  '"  '^''«^«'  '^at  ndt 
The  best  possible  proof Tu  Mr  T.ln'V^^^  T  '"  *»»'«  «Pi"ion. 
found  in  th'e  straits'^  o  which  te  fs  r  due  J?''  ''^'-^'^--^  it,  is 
against  it.     His  ingenuity  clord  vLe  a  phulroh  "  f^T"^' 
proposal  as  it  was  made  •  so  be  snhlluJJ^-u       "''Jection  to  the 
the  article  first  proposed  by  Mr  rl.r'  '"   i''^'**'  '*  **"^  '''"^ 
another,  the  third  ar'^^ic.e  oHh^treatv  on7q4     T^l^^^'"'^  ;  at 
jectural  inferences  of  abuse    wbirhU..?    '  «*»  third,  his  con- 
lege,  as  if  the  United  States  woj Id  h^f'h  ^T  '"^^'^  °^  ^^e  privi- 
them.     His  argument  is  neTeSttih  "**  P"*^*^  *°  control 

ime  :  and  at  the  future  Congress   a  ttemfn'  T  mk  "  '^"  ''^  interdicted  to  na 
of  the  principles,  accordinglo  wLic    the  d  ,  ^t  ^"'^  '"*''«  establishment 

dering  on  the  Rhine,  may  be  regua  ej    tnZ  "  \'  'T'^  ^^  »''«  ^^'''^^  bor- 


172 


'  the  MwsiMippi  precigely  as  she  could  hare  navixated  it  imme- 

•'  diately  after  the  treaty  of  1783;  as  if  her  territories  extended 

to  It,  and  as  it  Spam  was  in  entire  poMession  of  one  of  its  banks 

and  of  a  considerable  portion  of  the  otiier.     The  revival  of  the 

^'  British  right  to  navigate  the  Miasinsippi,  wonid  be,  under  exist- 

•  mgcircumstiinces,  a  new  and  complete  grnnl  to  her,  measured  by 

•  these  circumHta;  es,  and  thence  embracing  not  only  the  entire 
freedom  of  the  whole  extent  of  the  river,  but  the  unreslruined 
access  to  tl  across  our  territories.     W  we  did  not  intend  this,  we 

•  intended  nothing  which  Great  Britain  could  accept." 

Now  observe  the  amendment  to  the  Rfh  article  of  the  projected 
treaty,  as  it  was  proposed  on  the  Ist  of  December,  1814  and  re- 
jected : 

"  The  inhabitants  of  the  United  Slates  shall  continue  to  enjoy  the 
;;  !'^«''iy  '?>  t'^''^  •''-y.  «"'•  c"re  fish,  in  places  within  the  exclusive 
jurisdiction  of  Great  F3ritain,  as  secured  by  the  former  treaty  of 
peace;  and  the  navigation  of  the  river  Mississippi,  within  the 
exclusive  jurisdiction  of  the  United  States,  shall  remain  free  and 
•  open  to  the  subjects  of  Great  Britain,  hi  the  manner  secured  by  the 
satd  treaty;  and  it  is  further  aj^reed  that  the  subjecU  of  hisBri- 
♦'  tannic  majesty  shall  at  all  times  have  access,  from  such  place  as 
may  be  selected  for  that  purpose,  in  his  Britannic  majesty's  afore- 
said  territories,  west,  and  within  300  miles  of  the  Lake  of  the 
Woods    in  the  ftforesaid  territories  of  the  United  States,  to  the 
river  Mississippi    in  order  to  enjoy  the  benefit  of  the  navig^.tion 
Of  that  river,  with  their  goods,  etfects,  an.;  merchandise,  whose 
importation  into  the  said  States  shall  not  be  entirely  prohibited 
» on  the  payment  of  the  same  duties  as  would  be  payable  on  the' 
importation  of  the  same  into  the  Atlantic  ports  of  the  said  States 
'  and  on  conforming  with  the  usual  custom-house  regulations."     ' 
After  reading  this,  if  you  inquire  how  it  was  nossible  for  Mr  Rus- 
sell to  say,  in  the  passage  of  his  letter  immediately  preceding  it,  that 
we  oflered  the  navigation  of  the  Mississippi  to  the  British  otherwise 
than  as  it  had  been  secured  to  them  by  the  treaty  of  1783,  and  that 
we  offered  them  unrestrained  access  to  it  acro'ss  our  territories  • 
the  only  possible  answer  to  the  question  will  be,  that  it  was  necea-' 
sary  for  his  argument  to  say  so  ;  for  the  very  proposition  which  he 
says  was  nothing  which  Great  Britain  could  accept,  was  the  identi- 
cal  proposition  which  we  did  make,  and  which  she  did  not  accept. 
We  did  offer,  in  express  terms,  and  in  no  others,  the  navigation  in 
the  manner  secured  by  the  treaty  of  1783.     We  offered  the  access 
to  It,  restrained  to  a  single  point  of  departure,  300  miles  west  of 
the  Lake  of  the  Woods  ;  restrained  to  the  admission  only  of  goods 
not  prohibited,  to  the  payment  of  duties  on  merchandise  admitted 
and  to  compliance  with  all  the  custom-house  regulations.    Mr  Rus- 
sell says  that  It  embraced  the  entire  freedom  of  the  whole  extent 
of  the  river.     And  so  it  did  at  the  peace  of  1783  :  for  it  was  then 
secured  to  Great  Britain,  not  only  by  the  treaty  with  the  United 


173 

Stat»i,  bat  by  her  treaties  with  Spain  ;  »tcnr»A  l«j„„i  • 
farniore  unreatniined  than  in  ouT  DroDn.»i  r  1^^ 
with  Spain,  she  wa.  entided  to  the  CJLb^^^^^  *'^*''*  *»*»«« 
moath  of  the  river,  and  thatnonW^T/e^els  V"  m''.°"'  °'^  *•"" 
v...ted.  or  subjected  to  the  par.... .  ■  < .  «„„  Zv  If'  *"  '^''PEf'** 
r;gbt,  therefore,  which  ,ha  Uo.d  '  ve  S^W  uid^5"thT'*''-  ^'r 
l«t  December,  1814,  wonla  u  r^  b',n  8of«r  „..  •*P'^P°"'  "^ 
ry  e«tendid,  precisely  the .    ..  „'  Ser  L  »"* ?u«'""'  *«'•"*<'- 

and  so  far  a,  related  ti  th/ien      •    Ihf.Vi  "il'^'^'^  "'  °^  ''83  J 
m  ^83,  infinitely  more  re.tricL  uJi   ua^u  ''*'°°«*''  **>  Spain 
tie-  with  Spain/  Yelund  r  '!*        adv«  »         '?  "J"**'  '^"•- '^««- 
cured  to  her  by  her  treaJiel      J        ol    /'«*'  °'^^''*  "«•>*  «"  "C" 
u«e  to  her  ;  fof  the  s  mple  Jeason  that?A.  aT"  '''"'  ''*^"  °^  ««y 
river.     Now,  her  bounj^^r/i^ihu^    /"".'*"'""'"'  ^"  ^»>« 
tion  of  Ghent,  precisely  S'slel  It  h  J  r*""^*  °*  *''«  "«««««- 
pence  of  1783.^  She  had  formed  no    phi    *"'°  "«'"*"^  "P«°  «*  ^he 
«he  w«8  entitled  by  that  trea^v^o  a  Hn.  fri  '"J^^  ^"  **"*  "^«'" '  »>ut 
to  it.     We  proposed  ?o  her  a  Li^Tnl      k*'!'^"''*  ""^^^  ^"^^^ 
from  it ;  which'she  offered  to  aSwi I h'^/k''  ''°"'*^  ^"*  *>"  ^^^ 
Fight  to  navigate  the  river      All  t hi'  .h      *''*  /e'ervation  of  the 
Ithe  right  which  Grea   Br'tairf  hai  eniov^n''  *5""'?''*'  ^«*'^««« 
1 783,  and  that  which  she  would  have  in Jl     7^*;  *''*  ^••««*'«''  *>*• 
of  1814,  was  to  the  disadvltage  of  SreXlh^^'^'"'"  P^^^T' 
annulment  of  the  value  to  her  even  rnn«„      I   "i  '"'^  '^^"^  *«  the 
right.  ^'  ^^'^^'^  contingent  and  eventual,  of  the 

w.'''^®.^o•'thlessnes8  to  the  British  of  thiQ  r:«K»    r       •     . 
Mississippi,  had  been  very  disf-nctlv  pLceLi'     5    |^«v.«ating  the 
out  in  the  debates,  in  the  bSp^m  **''*"*' *''®"'''j' PO'oted 

articles  of  peace  of  November    1782     r„7h'r  '^^.  P'^^^^^^^^ry 
of  Carlisle  said,  in  the  House  of  Lords  •  *  °"'*'°°'  ^^^  E"'^ 

"  treaty  in  the  hands  of  he  sZZT  T'"  »I^*^*••  ''  ^^  '^^ 
"standings  is  this  fallacy  addrSnr  f  ^^''^^  «''''*  ^^  ""Jer- 
••  tional  beings  is  this  delusion  Slated  ."''^     ''''"^''''^  ''  "- 

••  ttr:^^:;^^^^^  ^^  -^-^^  -  to  stipulate 
"  cation  with  it.  Wi,a  was  me  ;n7b^?.";'  ^^^  cut  off  all  communi- 
'•  ^  as  agreed  on  in  the  trTa";;:  ^^  ^OTi::::^:^!^ 

"  nication  by  which  we  could  tran^nLr^  ^""^^^  '"  "°  '^o""**"- 
••  short,  the'artic  J^f^the  uavS^^^^^^^  '"-'^et.     In 

;'  suit  on  our  undeTstandin^,  ad^^d  to  aU  the^nTrK  ''''  ""  '"• 
"  property  by  the  present  peace  ''  •'""^*  ''*'"'^'  ^^  '^'"- 


174 


i< 


Viscoont  SackviUfc :— <«  All  the  forts  were  on  the  American  side  5 
*'  the  immense  diwrict  of  country  which  supplied  us  with  masts  was 
"  gone  ;  the  Indian  nations  were  abandoned  ;  and  we  were  insult- 
ed with  the  navigation  of  the  Mississippi,  when  all  its  benefits 
"  were  taken  away." 

To  all  this,  the  only  reply  of  the  minister,  the  Earl  of  Shel- 
burne,  was  ; 

"  The  navigation  of  the  Mississippi  has  been  reprohftted  as  an 
"  useless  acquisition.  Could  men  seriously  assert  this  ?  Was  a 
*•  navigation  of  so  many  hundred  miles  up  a  country  where  there 
"  is  a  call  for  our  manufactures,  an  useless  thing  ?    Surely  not." 

i^aiuard^s  Parliamenlary  History,  vol.  23. 

In  the  House  of  Commons,  lord  North  said  : 

"  There  seems  to  be  a  peculiar  mockery  in  the  article  which 
**  grants  us  an  eternal  and  free  navigation  of  the  Mississippi,  frrm 
"  its  source  to  the  ocean,  in  participation  with  the  United  Staies. 
*'  Such  is  the  freedom  of  the  navigation,  that  where  we  were  not 
•'  locally  excluded,  we  have  effected  it  by  treaty  We  were  ex- 
•♦  eluded  by  the  northern  boundary.  The  east  is  possessed  by  the 
*'  Americans.  The  w^sl  had  been  ceded  by  the  peace  of  Paris  to 
"  the  French,  who  had  since  granted  it  to  the  Spaniards  ;  and  each 
*•  shore,  at  its  mouth,  is  ceded  by  the  present  treaty  to  Spain.—- 
♦*  Where  is  then  tuis  navigation,  so  free  and  open,  to  be'  commenced  ? 
"  All  the  possession,  I  believe,  that  we  shall  ever  have,  will  be  iis 
"  nomination  in  this  treaty.  We  must  be  content  with  the  grant, 
"  without  the  possession."    p.  451. 

Mr.  Fox  : — "  By  the  boundaries  which  have  been  so  carelessly 
"  prescribed,  we  have  excluded  ourselves  from  the  Mississippi  ; 
"  so  that  we  only  retain  the  name,  without  being  able  to  enjoy  its 
*•  possession."    p.  635, 

To  these  objections,  no  reply  was  made  in  the  House  of  Com- 
mons. They  were  all  grounded  on  the  very  obvious  principle  that 
the  mere  right  of  navigating  a  river  from  its  source  to  the  oceaUj 
can  be  of  no  use  to  a  nation,  having  no  settlement  on  the  river  • 
yet,  at  that  time,  as  Great  Britain  retained  a  boundary  line  to  the 
river,  she  might  have  subsequently  formed  a  settlement  upon  it 
which  would  have  given  value  to  the  right.  At  the  time  of  the 
treaty  of  Ghent,  thirty  years  of  experience  had  proved  the  corr 
rectness  of  those  views  by  which  the  right  of  navigating  the  Mis- 
sissippi, reserved  to  the  British  by  the  treaties  of  1783,  had  been 
represented  as  merely  nominal  and  worthless  ;  and  by  the  propos- 
ed 8th  .-vrticle  of  the  treaty.  Great  Britain  was  to  abandon  her  claim 
even  of  ever  coming  in  territorial  contact  with  the  river. 
.  Until  a  better  answer,  therefore,  than  this  can  be  given  to  the 
opinion  that  the  proposal  offered  to  the  British  would  have  been 
if  accepted,  of  no  value  to  Ihem,  and  of  no  injury  tc  ns,  I  shall  take' 
the  liberty  to  consider  it  as  demonstrated.    Nortviil  it  be  sufficient 


175 

for  Mr.  Russell  to  say.  that  he  «it"'l  riiffi»«»  •  •  . 
Will  probabl,  continue  t'Sifferln^';^  o"  TvufrV'S '"^'  ''''' 
for  I  have  proved  from  his  own  worA.  %I  k™  '  °"  ^^^^  PO»°t  • 
,  differ  from  mme.  as  to  the  pronoJart.li  1'  '^P*"*""  *^»d  ao« 
differ  with  me  now,  it  -s  odj  iaTlcit  L'^i'J" '  '"*'  '^  ^^  ^«e« 
^  As  to  the  value/the  comparatTveva^  ^"''  '''"•««'^- 

this  admission  of  a  mere  naC  nVhf  in  f  ^  ^'^^'"'^^  ^o  us,  wia» 
of  our  high-ways,  cSulnaHvlcLrlTr^r'/  ***  '''''*  °"  o°« 
the  citizens  of  every  StateTnZf^^  i  ^^  ^'''^''^^  ^'^^  ^  all 
my  surprize  that  it  should  be  demedhv  v'*""°'.  '««'"  ^'^^hold 
if  a  citizen  of  GeorgU  sllld  '  ^h/k,''  It?  "^  ^a««achusett8. 
prove  that  the  right  oVcultivaUng'^o'tot  or  a  Sen  'ofT^*  *^ 
should  maintain  that  the  right  ot' raisin"  «n„  '^'"^^"  J?*^  Louisiana 
the  people  of  the  United  St^ates  isTt  to  1.1""'  "'''  ^^^'^^^'"e  to 
nation  of  his  countrv    th.^  h  !    r  •  ®  derision  or  to  the  indie- 

effectual  prporfF\*„^d'':f'  ,.,t'«''t«t'«»  "'ould  prove  the  mofi 

not  as  an  Tdle  am  sement  to    how'wi?h'T'"'  ^'"u"''  ""^  '^""«" 
wildestabsurdities  might  be  maintained  hSr  ""'''  '"g^nuity  th^ 
addressed  to  the  supreme  authority  of  th^^  ^  ^'"^-^  «tate-paper, 
not  at  the  mere  IheLtTcal  rtht  bn^  1  ^    ^T°".'  ''"'''"g  ^'"^^tly 

the  citizens  of  GeorgTa  or  of  Loi^^^  ^^ 

currence  with  a  fJ^n  power  coSi  and  directly  tending,  i„  con- 

forever-what  wouIdThr  pTople  of  Slo^r  '  ^°  1'?"""  ^^^'^  ^^  ^^ 
tvouJd  the  people  of  the  Sd  Sta?««    f'  ?^  ^°"'«iana,  what 

Should  it  fUl  appear,  t^Trhls  ve^r^  i^^n^VtThe^  •-. 

his  composing  the  work  was  i  mpmhil  r  '  •  ^®'")'  *"»''  of 
charged  and  Instructed  trdefendnJ  °^.  ^^'""i^^on  specially 
formidable  of  nationarenemitfrh'e   at  eTh^^hr  h*  ^'*^  T^ 

defence  of  this  fight  while  Urcon^tl' r"'""'°^  '^^  '^-"^  «°^  «»'/ 
himself  was  yet  charged^tN  ts  suoToft  Z'  T'  £'"''•"«'  «"d  ^e 
own  signature,  exhaust  hiding  ut/ to  prove  thl  -'?''''  *''» 
destitute  of  foundation,  aDd  ftyle  it  tbe*^ dream  of""'"'''"  '"''">^ 
ridicule  one  of  his  coJIeae^ies  fJr  believL  if  « ,1  '"''*»»«''3^'  <» 
nation  of  incidents  would  doubtless  D^^2f/  '  '^''  •"*'*  *^*^"'>'- 
character  to  the  conterpl  'on  of  the^^Z  '  ?"""'  '"^  P«"t'<=«» 
rested  in  his  conduct  and   Tthl  \  ,^^*«^««  "'o«t  'mmedsately  inte. 

obliterated  from  the^'r  mfmoVy  "'  "''"'*'  ^^^''^  °°*  ««""  h. 

That  which  a  native  citizen  of  Georgia  of  nf  r 
have  done,  under  the  cin^n,a.t^nl\  .^°^8'*  °'  °*  Louisiana  wou  d 
cultivating  cotton  Jfsug^rL  been  Jit  ^''^''i  '^  '^^  "^^^  "*' 
of  Massachusetts,  has  d^e  in  rrhonr  n^H  WH,  a  native 
The  xVewlbundlakd,  NovTs^oti^  G.Tof  sf'r'  '"  ^^'  ^'^'^'y- 
brador  fisheries,  ar^  n  nature  and  i.K  '  ^"T'^"*^*'  ^'^'^  ^• 
their  value  and  of  th/    "h   to  share  in  ^^       ^""^t^"''''"   ''otb  .f 


176 

cultivate  cotton  or  sugar.  To  be  cut  off  even  froni  that  portion  of 
it  which  was  within  the  exclusive  British  jurisdiction  in  the  strict- 
est sense,  within  the  Gulf  of  St,  Lawrence,  and  on  the  coast  of  La- 
brador, would  have  been  like  an  interdict  upon  the  people  of 
Georgia  or  Louisiana  to  cultivate  with  cotton  or  sugar  three-fourthi 
of  the  lands  of  those  respective  States.  The  fisheries  of  Massa- 
chusetts are  her  cotton  plants  and  her  sugar  canes.  She  is  not  blest 
with  the  genial  skies,  nor  gifted  with  the  prolific  soil,  of  southero  ' 
climes  ;  but  that  which  nature  has  denied  to  her  shores,  she  has 
bestowed  upon  her  neighbouring  seas,  and  to  thera  she  is  indebted 
for  copious  sources  of  nourishment  and  subsistence,  if  not  of  opu- 
lence and  splendour,  to  thousands  of  her  sons. 

Of  the  value  of  these  fisharies,  none  but  general  information  was 
possessed  by  the  American  negotiators  at  Ghent.  Their  instruc- 
tions were,  not  to  inquire  into  their  value,  but  not  to  surrender  any 
part  of  them.  After  the  peace  was  made,  while  Mr.  Russell  was 
intent  upon  his  discovery  that  they  were  worthless  by  reason  of 
incessant  fogs  and  humidities  of  atmosphere,  and  straining  his  dia- 
lectic powers  and  his  diplomatic  erudition,  to  prove  tiiat  the  right 
to  them  was  irretrievably  lost,  I  was  impelled  by  my  sense  of 
duty  to  seek  more  particular  information  of  the  value  both  of  that 
fishery,  generally,  and  of  that  portion  of  it,  which,  by  the  most  re- 
stricted construction  of  the  notification  which  we  had  received, 
would  be  denied  us  if  that  notification  should  be  carried  into  effect! 
I  obtained  it  from  various  sources  ;  but  principally  from  one  of  the 
most  distinguished  merchants  and  statesmen  of  this  Union  :  and  a« 
It  concerns  an  object  of  great  national  interest,  I  shall  publish  it, 
with  some  additional  observations  of  my  own.  It  will  have  the  ef- 
fect of  sunshine  upon  ai!  Mr.  Russell's  fogs. 

Immensely  valuable  as  it  will  prove  these  fisheries  to  be,  yet  if  the 
question  involved  in  the  article  first  proposed  by  Mr.  Gallatin  bad 
been  such,  that  while  securing  to  the  people  of  New  England  the 
continued  enjoyment  of  them,  it  would  in  any  the  slightest  degree 
have  impaired  the  enjoyment,  by  the  people  of  the  Western 
Country,  of  tUir  right  to  navigate  the  Mississippi,  the  objection  to 
it  would  have  been  serious  and  great.  Could  it  bave  affe*cted  mo- 
ierially  their  enjoyment  of  that  right,  the  objection  would  have 
been  insuperable,  and. Mi-.  Gallatin  never  would  have  thought  of 
making  the  proposal.  But  no  such  consequence  could  flow  from  it. 
The  people  of  the  West  are  left  by  it  in  the  tull  enjoyment  of  all 
their  rights.  Nothing  was  taken  from  them.  But  British  subjects 
from  Canada  would  have  been  entitled  to  travel  by  land  or  water  to 
the  river,  and  to  descend  in  boats  to  its  mouth.  They  now  enjoy 
the  right  as  much  as  they  would  have  enjoyed  it  if  the  article  had 
been  proposed  and  accepted.  The  only  difference  is,  that  they  now 
enjoy  it,  as  not  prohibited  by  law,  while  by  the  proposed  article  it 
would  have  been  secured  to  them  by  treaty. 

The  objection  to  Mr.  Gallatin's  proposed  article,  therefore,  was 
an  objection  to  securing  to  New  England  the  continued  enjoyment 


of  the  fisheries,  because  the  orice  of  u.  «.     u 
jn.t  British  subjects  to  travel^a  Kwav^^^^^^?, ^""'^  ^«  <«  ?•«- 
It  was  impossible  to  make  of  it  a  fv  thfni  „^^  ^'''*«''"  ^''^^^n- 
cernedas  I  felt  for  the  fate  of  tbl  filh*  ^       ■'  ""'^  deeply  con- 
that  the  objection  was  made  tot    Not  fc?'  '  ^''''^y  •'^g^««e^ 
accepted  by  the  British  plenipotemLr  J-     f  ?''''^ '^  ^«»W  be 
value  which  they  set  upon   the  fishe/ra;^   h'""  ^'l'  ''"^^  the 
which  they  must  estimate  the  naked  St  TnJ^  ^^'hlessness  at 
Mississippi,  to  consider  it  as  probable  fhl/^.,"'  °^  navigating  the 
proposaf.     But  our  duty  a.  £1Tp'    V^*t '^«)' ."'^"'d  accept  the 
the  defence  of  all  its  ZhL  27  ih!  f  *''«.U"i«n.  charged  w"  h 
and  specially  instructed  t?  Tut^X^l^t  "^*^"  '^'^-nmll 
everi,  fair  exertion  to  preserve  them      a  5  J''^^"^"'  ""^^  to  use 

«a^one  of  the  only  two  possible  m^de/n"r  ^Z'  ^'""''"'^  P'-^Po^a" 
Nevertheless,  as  a  8troL«n.nff°^^'^'''=ting  it.  ^ 

article  wa,  made,  av^e^dV  l^  S?^^^^^^^^^ 
«?*re/y  sectional ;  after  a  discus.ior  conT.  r.^"f'P"'^««'  interest 
«'ve  days,  at  the  last  of  which  only  i^d  "J  ''"'""^'^  ^''  «"'=*^*'«- 
vote  was  taken,  I  did,  on  the  4th  of  mI  l^"  P"'*'  ""^  before  the 
pared  either  to  propose  Mr  Gaiat^n^a*'"^'''  ^^^''^''^  myself  pre^ 
that  all  the  rights  and  liber  iesi"  he  S"'''  "''^"'^'^^  the  ground 
a  part  of  our  national  indepeXfe  tht'^^^  ^^re  recognledTn 
gated  by  the  war,  and  needed  no  st!;..!?-  ^7  '*'"'''  "«t  be  abro- 
aBjert  this  principle  in  th:  note"   tt^r^^^^^^^  renewal^to 

tentiaries,  with  the  project  of  the  treaf!       ^  ^  ^''"''•'  P»«n'PO> 
altogether.  r    J    ^  "'  me  treaty,  and  to  omit  the  article 

Mr.  Russell,  in  the  acuteness  of  h.'.  ,,- 
consistency  between  these  Uvoopi?io,r«'?P\'°°1'  *''«^''^«''«  '"•"  in- 
he  charged  it  aa  an  inconsis  ency^   o^  L  l'"^^,^"^'-  ^'^"^  Par.;. 
In  the  Boston  Statesman  ho  return  'o  it  ns„r-^""'^°^^^«  '"'^^'O" 
According  tc  his  doctrine,  the  asso  tion  Lf  »  r"  Tf  ""«'?tency  ofmine. 
suent  with  the  offer  of  ^  stipul  .t ion  Jbr  if/?^*  "^ '">"'''^ '«  ««^«"- 
t"ht  H  °f  -^^  P^«'''"inaries.  of  November   mr"'"""     ^^«  ^--^t 
th.8  doctrine,  iWo«m/«„f  with  the  Dpri'  ^l^^' T^^^^<^ovdiDgto 
Why  stipulate  for  a  right,  Sh  vo.f  S  h'""'^  ^''^"P^""^^'^^^^ 
declaration  ?    1  cannot^aste  word«    n  ,?f..i^  '"'^"!  *^^  ^«'"-  "'^n 
these.     So  of  the  pretended iro„I/l'^'r''^«''«h   positions  as 
berty,  leaving  the  r^A,  to  theXr  2  tn^.  '[  •  -'puJating  for  the  /]! 
in  the  treaty  of  17*3.     T^^e  stinnLfi       Z-  "P''"  the  recognition 
w.th  the  portion  of  right  clL^rttb/^r''  ''''  -°-«xSns he 
was  no  motive  (or  asking  a    ;r  S  on  fnr!h  /'i:'^P•'"•^^    Tj.cre 
Uuestion.     If  the  Britifh  V^     >,Xn£ri^1''^''^  *''^^  ^^'"^  no' 
iha%  considered  our  Jm/X/o/-Tf      '''^•'"'*  notified  «o  us 

thought  of  askioit  u  n'      «tipulat  on  «n!„      '  'u"*'"'*^''  «''""'d  have       - 
trme  and  Mr.  Rut^el        .I*^"  ht  "hat  tlTl  ;''''"•     '^  th./r  doc 
abrogated  by  the  k     ,  and    .^t  o  r  i/    fl"''  treaty  of  1 78.1  wL 

b.  the  mere  existence  u  war,  was  3;^^^^^;;^^. 


J78 

MOifbr  uo  necessity  whatever  to  irtvc  us  thiit  notitication.     Thoy 
might  have  concluded  the  treaty  without  SKving  a  word  about  the 
jHhories,  and  then  hiivfi  told  ii8  thut  they  hmf  been  forfeittd  by  the 
war.     But  they  knew  better.     They  knew  that  not  only  war,  but 
conqucit,  was  necesssry  to  wrest  from  us  any  right  or  liberty  recog- 
nised by  them  as  belonjijing  to  us  by  the  treaty  of  1783.  To  accom- 
plish this  conquest,  dnspniring  to  obtain  from  us  an  express  renun- 
ciation by  treaty,  as  they  had  obtained  it  from  Spain  in  1703,  they 
tried  to  obtain  it  by  means  of  our  acquiescence  in  this  notitication  ; 
and  they  made  it  in  indefinite  terms,  seeming  to  strike  only  at  the 
portion  of  tiie  fisheries  within  their  most  restricted  territorial  ju- 
risdiction,  but  susceptible,  if  once  acquiesced  in  by  us,  of  a  con- 
struction sanctioned  by  the  who!e  history  and  public  law  relative 
to  those  fisheries,  which  would  deprive  us  of  them  all,  including 
those  of  the  Grand  Bank. 

The  article  proposed  by  Mr.  Gallatin  covered  the  »vhole  ground 
disputed  by  the  adversary  ;  and  the  advantage  of  it  to  us, 'if  pro- 
posed and  accepted,  would  have  been,  that  we  should  hare  issued 
from  the  war,  with  all  the  fishing  rights  and  liberties,  as  enjoyed 
before  it,  uncontested.  When,  therefore,  during  the  discussion, 
and  before  the  vote  had  been  taken,  1  offered  to  abandon  this  ad- 
vantage, and  to  rest  the  future  defence  of  the  fishing  rights  and 
liberties  upon  the  distinct  assertion  that  they  had  not  been  forfeited 
or  abrogated  by  the  war,  by  thus  resting  it,  I  knew  that  it  would 

be  necessary  to  defertd  them,  after  the  conclusion  of  the  peace 

to  defend  them  against  the  power,  and  the  policy,  and  the  intel- 
lect of  Great  Britain.  It  was  placing  them  all  at  the  hazard  of 
future  negotiation  and  another  war:  and  I  thought  I  ofi'ered  a 
signal  concession,  of  deference  to  the  mere  sectional  feelings  of 
one  western  meririher  of  the  mission,  by  offering  to  accept  the  aK 
temative.  But  I  felt  the  most  entire  confidence  in  the  soundness 
of  the  principle  which  I  asserted.  I  knew  that  it  was  sufficient  to 
preserve  the  fishing  rights  and  liberties  from  surrender.  I  was 
content  with  it  as  a  fulfilment  of  our  express  instructions  ;  and  1 
relied  upon  the  determined  spirit  and  active  energy  of  my  country 
10  maintain  it  aftc*  the  peace.  I  had  no  doubt  of  the  ultimate  re- 
sult, so  long  as  our  assent  to  the  British  doctrine  and  notification 
was  neither  expressed  nor  implied. 

My  proposal  was  not  however  accepted,  until,  upon  taking  the 
vote  on  the  question  whether  the  article  ju-oposed  by  Mr.  Gallatin 
should  be  offered  lo  the  British  plenipotentiaries,  it  appeared  there 
was  a  majority  of  the  mission  in  favour  of  it.  This  vote  W}»8  taken 
as  has  been  stated,  on  the  5th  of  November  ;  and  on  the  7th  the 
substitute,  being  the  proposition  which  I  had  suggested  on  the  4th, 
was  offered  by  Mr.  Clay,  and  unanimously  accepted.  The  article 
\^m  not  proposed  to  the  British  plenipotentiaries,  nor  was  the  con- 
sideration of  it  ever  after  resumed. 

This  transaction,  therefore,  was  totally  distinct  f  row  that  of  the 
^8th  and  21?th  of  November  :  and  as  it  tenuinafod  m  uo  act  of  th» 


179 

of  26th  December  !  i'truc  th«^  -»  ^'^-^  *^'"*"'"'^  °^^'»^«* 
the  vo.e  upon  Mr.  Ga  atin'H  Sli  e  I  '.  'f  ''^  ''''November,  when 
tion«  of  1 9th  October  preSinfoti':  T  '"^'"^  '^'^  '"«*^"^- 
8  ructions  of  iGth  AprU,  1 8 iTcit^^v  li?^  i  *"  PrS'^P''  «** "'«  '"- 
although  writtc:.  and  on  therZTJI  I'i  "  m '"  '"  '»«  ''»P''<^«tc. 
«t  «  equally  true,  that  thro'  ^h*^  I  oTho  e Vile  ^  '''''' '^  '  I'"* 
vote  of  Jith  November,  «lthou«|  ovo  v  ob  roT'"'!  P'r'^'"^«  the 
profound,  and  vieorous  ml.wi  ^     1 1  ^  o»>J<"ction  which  un  ardent 

adduced,  yet  noTent  o„ T  J  mat'  ''''"'V  «''''^'«  ^ 

Wonsof  J5th  April  IRn    ItlT  "  I'-Tagraph  of  the  iristruc- 

violate  those tfsrutbn,  and  ifTh"'  'l"*'"'  "'"'  *''«  "•''*<^'«  ^^ou'd 
would  have  been  obirus'  thai  Ll^'^^'^f^''  "Ueged  the  answer 
«  claim  to  the  boundary  "L„  the  mL"'  •^''"'  '"•'^'""  ••^'•''"^d 
-.mc  for  granted  thnt  tiu  r  v^  wts  w  r 'T'.^^  '=°"''^.  ''''  "«' 
tion,  nor  consequently  that  the  i.Jr,  ^  ".""'  f^clusive  jurisdic- 
bHd  us  from  HKreeine  to  a  St  '  '^'h  April,  j«i3,for. 

•ubjects  to  its  navi^on  m'  R  "m  r/Z'^K  ^  ^'«''^  "''»'•*''«»» 
admit,  at  least  by  miplication  th .  ?.  .  ?''  *^'''  '"  "'^  ''emarks  I 
slruction  of  I5th  AprH     J^^^^^^^^  letter  and  spirit  of  fhe  in- 

no  such  thing;  but  tL^  I  hfvV^ZeiT,!^  '^''' .  '  ^'^'"'^ 
never,  either  in  the  discussion.  nrrp!.T.  V,  ''"""'^''y-  » say  that 
ber,  18ia  -  in  those  0^7^X1  N"«^''t'^''  ""^  ^^^  ^-^^^m- 
tions        6ti.    .nril   ifi] •T  '11^     ,  ^'^  November,  were  the  instruc- 

to  M.     :«.  /S';heDefrr;;Ts^^^^^^  nor  did  ,  sW 

•rtructit       ,.  4th  and  19th  OrtX,  ll   u     '}l'  '"^'^"'''^  "'  the  in- 
from  the  obligation  of  observing  ,f  I' *°  f''°?^  '^'»*  ^«  '^«''e  released 
I  -bowed  them  to  hi  to  prov^^    ?. Mn  r*'""'''^'*'^  ^P'*''  ^«'3. 
cate,  fabricated  at  Washir  X  in    820  f "  ''f  "^'""^  "'^  h'«  '^'^P"- 
at  Paris  in  1816,  he  b7S?  ol  L^?"'"  "'  '''"'  'ctter  written 
gravated  crimination  "Is   1  «  c'l  r.   "''^  '  ""'^  '^^''g^  *>''«S- 
express  words  of  his  rea^et  e     but  th  fh!';  T^'i'''''^  by  the 
this  charge,  an  instructionr  v  lich  at  ti  l^.W     'h''''\'"  P"'""''  "^ 
was  taken, against  which  he  now  ,1       *""«.  "-hen  the  question 
in  contradiction  to  tXt    "  Ind'r??  ^^'"^J**. '^ '"  J 8 16,  averred, 
voted,  because  he  tl     g  t  it  1^^^^^^^  he  had 

had  been  cancelled.  I  shoved  them  1  b  /"'^'"^^^^^  '^'^ '^"^^ 
now  alleged  as  his  main  moTi ve  Ibr  vol.  ''??'  ^'"'*  ^^^^  ^^^^ 
had  not  been  and  could  nit  h?v.  been  h?,  "^T^  ^^^  proposition, 
an  invention  of  182i.  held  for  ha    .n       'r""^  Tl'^*^  •"  *''«t  it  was 

I  trust  I  have  now^hown   bevond  r        l'^'^^'"*'  '"  ^^'^- 
same  character  belongsTo ^vS  he  caUsir.    'Vt^'^'  ''^^^  '*" 
offer  made  to  the  British  ^leni  J^  emi/rS^  ""^  ^^'^ 

m^t  contradictioft  <„  th-  AZZTl]^    ^  "  '«°f  December,, 
given  in  my  remarks  on  hT-   ;tters  ^  "*  ""^  '^  ''^'''^  '  '•"^ 

^tatlfn!''2;'ir;,:;fh;;«^^  i-  the  Boston 

^  word  to  .a,  «nd  sii^s  rsr:,;^^^- Tll^'^i/^ 


l,**^^ 


180 

r«pW.  He  tayc  tie  shall  have  abundant  reason  to  rejoice,  if  in  dU 
reeling  the  inhrinities  of  my  temper  against  him,  they  thall  have 
been  diverted  J  rom  a  course  in  which  they  might  have  beeA  di$astrou!> 
to  the  country,  U  in  the  history  of  my  life,  or  in  that  of  the  coun- 
try, Mr.  Kussell  could  nllege  a  single  incident,  in  which  the  infir- 
mities of  my  temper  over  have  taken  a  course  disastrous  to  the 
country,  I  should  have  felt  this  Parthian  shaft  to  boas  deeply  tinited 
with  venom  to  me,  as  witli  bitterness  from  the  heart  whence  it  sped 
But  It  has  fallen  short  of  its  mark  ;  equally  harmless  to  me  and 
useless  to  the  profossad  pntriotic  wolf-devotion  of  the  archer. 

And  how  standH  the  account  of  Mr.  Russell  l  At  the  ne^rotiation 
•t'Ubent,  he  had,  as  a  member  of  the  mission,  been  irstructed  in 
terms  the  most  positivp  and  unquulilied,  not  to  surrender  the  fish- 
eries.    In  that  instruction,  no  sophistical  distinction  between  a 
nght  III  the  hsheries  held  by  virtue  of  our  independence,  and  a 
liberty  in  the  hshsries  held  by  grant  from  Great  Britain,  wjts  war- 
ranted  or  alio  wed.     No  part  of  them  was  to  be  surrendered.   \nd 
the  instruction  was  pointed  and  precise,  to  break  otf  the  negotiation 
•ocner  than  surrender  them.     The  British  plenipotentiaries  had 
presented  the  demand  o(  surrender  in  such  form,  that  there  were 
only  two  possibJe  modes  of  saving  them  ;  one,  to  agree  to  a  new 
stipulation  recognising  them  ;  the  other,  to  maintain  that  thev  hod 
not  been  abrogated  by  tiie  war.     A  stipulation  fbr  a  new  recomi. 
hon  IS  oftered.  Mr.  Uussell  votes  apdnst  it,  because,  as  he  alleses 
«  would  deprave  the  western  country  of  ,,n  advantage,  which  thev 
would  othenvise  derive  from  the  war.     He  prefers  that  the  East 
ahould  lose,  so  that  the  West  may  ^ain.  by  the  result  of  the  war. 
He  rejects  the  proposal  which  would  place  both  interests  on  the 
.ame  ioeting  as  before  the  war.     The  East  is  his  native  section  of 
the  Union.     But  it  i»  a  disafecte>d  part  of  the  couiiKry  :  and  then— 
"  VVestwdrtl  the  star  of  en 


I  tokri  its  caurae.'^ 

Well—the  other  alternative  i»  pimented  ;  to  auiintain  that  the 
liberties  in  question  acre  not  akmgmted  by  the  war.     Mr.  Russell 
^ubBcnbes  to  this  :  but  he  now  sa««  it  wm  "  in  the  spirit  of  com- 
promtse  as  a  pretext  to  preserve  :be  fishing  privilege,  and  to  get 
rid  of    the  other  proposition.     Sol»«quently,  Mr.  Russell  assents 
to  the  other  proposition  itself,  and  subscribes  his  name  to  a  letter 
declaring  that  he  iiad  no  objection  to  it.     But  this  loo  be  now  says 
was  only  in  deference  to  the  majority,  and  for  fear  that  if  be  did 
not  subscribe,  the  enemy  would  accept  it.     The  enemv,  however, 
despise  this  equivalent,  .o  extravagant  in  the  eyes  of  Mr.  Rus»ell : 
and  no  sooner  is  U  oflered  to  them  than  they  reject  it.     The  peace 
18  concluded,     i  he  Mississippi  navigation  is  not  conceded  to  the 
Kritish  ;  and  the  preservation  oftiic  tishing  liberties  to  this  aatioD. 
depends  exclusively  upon  their  maintaining  the   principle,  that 
they  had  not  been  abrogated  by  the  m.r.     Six  weeks  after  sigwng 
this  treaty,  Mr.  Russell,  still  commissioned  as  a  member  ol  the 
mission  tn  negotiate  a  treaty  of  commerce  with  Great  Britain,  lia- 


IftI 

tie.,  deliberately  sits  *Jow„  IT-S  "/fr^L'^*^"  ""''  «»hin«  Hber- 

were  irrefrtevnbly  logt ;  that  there  w«.  „n  «  ^  I'"*"'"?  "^«rtiei 
hem  rem«ini.« /that  the  prinanleTln  II'k^^^  '<^ 

eaguos  h«.l  staked  them  at  Ghent'^ ta  T.  1«^  *V*  *"''  *"•  «°^ 

that  our  c;  'v  title  to  them  IZu  ^  *''^®''"  °^  •  ▼«»«oiiBrv : 

perfient  for  u»  to  recover  thefn  wm  bv  ofltr'  r^^ll ''°"''''«  «" 
anient,  "foir  in  it.  comnurS  v«h.7  «^«"»«  ^^  ben,  on  eq«i. 
feet.;"  and,  as  the  proCde.t  o/ all  hS  J"'*  '"  "-«•«'«« veV 
Jhe„.th„t  thisequivSent  n.rb:^tat^.'';S-^^^^^^^ 

the^„!:tb^hol!S"h:^tC|.'"J^^^  'tto 

way,  to  be  intercepted  by  the  enemv  '  i  ^T'^*  '^ '"  ^""O"* 
«Je«tinatlon,  after  the  ratification  of  Z'  "  '""'''"''•  ''°'^«''«''.  *»• 
time  when  BruishcruiZ  sttJofed  onT^'r  h''''j"'*  '^'''  **»« 
an  American  fishing  vessels  not  ^  In  J  1  ''"'!!''8  K'-ound.,  ,v«rn 
the  shores.  Such  f.  the  nrartica  exE  '  '^'^'"  *'"^  "»»'"  <»f 
government  of  Omr  meon'^rg  i^the  SlT  ^'^J  ^^  ^^^^  «"«•»» 
intended  to  exclude  us  from  fshint  «?*'*!  "?.t"'c«tion  that  they 
*-.>„^y ..  and  that  eipoZntZum^^^  f  ^^'"^  ''■ 

public  Inw  applicable  trthe  case  andTt?  '^  ""  '  '^  ''''^°"«» 
upon  the  law  of  nations.  Thrr;,lLiit  "'o^- T?"'"*"*  '^"*«" 
men,  thus  interrupted  in  their  honiT-  J  *»•  American  fisher- 
from  theexerciseof  it    ftnd/h»  'ndusti^.  and  interdicted 

consequent  discontinuance  of  th^fi-l;  °.^l^^  by  war,  and  the 
must  have  been  received  about  tLt  "5  r^'^F'  T  *""  *"""  '0 
State.     If  the  argument  had  h!«  "*!•'  ''^  *''®  Secretary  oi 

boriously  wrouglft  wha    a  1^"""  "*  ""C'^^^*'"''  ««  it  had  been"^la- 

forMr.Lnroeto\Ltm,tinLnr'«  !!  ^""'"^  '^"^^  "'^PP'-^^l 

s>i2:i':rL"nr :ar ^^^^^^^^^^    ^'^^^^^^^^^^^  Sef -'vt 

ruption  of  the  fishermpr  fS  to  remonstrate  against  the  inter- 
A  Correspondence  rtKBHtiTh'"'"'"  '^'  '''«^*«°*"  »^«  "«''°o- 
the  question  as  to  thf  abrogftrof'tr^^^^  '"  '^''/^'' 

roughly  discussed.  The  orderTo  ^L  ii«?l  ^  ^'  *'®^  ""^  "*<»- 
disavowed,  and  partly  rouSrmanVed  Thl  „T'!' r  ^'""^  P'^''^'^ 
tinued  until  that  ot  xL  canveS  of  1 8 1 «  "'''5°*'^''?"  ^»»  '^O"" 
ed  in  it.     The  Bnf.Bh  „-«!         ^        ^^  commenced,  and  nwrg- 

•-.y  of  .783.    A.  „„,.  didTgr/rlii':?  fhl  ifS^l" 


182 

rcOooBcc  the  doctrine,  that  all  their  right*  and  libertiea,  recognised 
by  the  treaty  ol  1783,  were  in  full  force  as  if  the  war  of  1812  had 
never  occurred.     The  conflict  of  opinion  was  adjusted  by  a  new 
article,  as  little  liable  to  be  abrogated  by  h  future  war,  as  the  treaty 
of  Independence.     By  this  article,  we  have  expressly  renounced 
a  snaall  portion  of  the  liberties  within  the  exclusive  and  limited 
territorial  jurisdiction  of  part  of  the  British  provinces,  and  have 
received  in  equivalent  an  enlargement  of  those  liberties  on  the 
coast  and  shores  of  Newfoundland.     The  substance  of  the  contest 
has  been  conceded  to  us  ;  and  each  party  has  adhered  to  its  doc- 
trine.    Now,  if  Mr.  Russell  had  been  charged  with  this  negotiation 
on  the  part  of  the  United  States,  as,  at  the  time  when  he  wrote 
his  letter  of  11th  February,  1816,  there  was  a  probabiJity  that  he 
might  be,  what  would  have  been  his  situation,  and  how  would  this 
great  interest  of  bis  country  have  stood,  if  when  first  ordered  to 
remonstrate  against  the  interruption  of  the  American  fishermen  by 
British  cruisers  in  1815,  the  British  government  had  answered 
him  by  a  copy  of  his  own  letter,  written  but  six  months  before  at 
Pans  ?    To  his  own  situation,  perhaps,  his  memory  may  furnish 
him  a  parallel,  from  the  feelings  with  which  on  the  29th  of  April 
last,  he  leamt  that  the  otiginal  of  his  letter  had  been  found.     But 
for  the  interest  of  his  country,  what  had  his  letter  left  him  the  power 
to  say  to  the  British  government,  in  the  case  supposed  ?    For  the 
maintenance  of  the  liberties  of  his  country ,  he  had  disabled  his  own 
pen,  and  sealed  his  own  lips.     He  had  come  forth  as  the  champion 
of  the  cause  of  their  adversary.     The  fisheries  on  the  banks  of 
Newfoundland,  in  the  Gulf  of  St.  Lawrence,  and  on  the  coast  of 
Labrador,  would  have  been  lost  to  this  Union  ;  lost,  by  the  pre- 
varications (to  use  no  harsher  term)  of  a  native  of  Massachu- 
setts,     Is  this,  the  man  who  charges  me  with  infirmities    of 
temper,  which  might  have  taken  a  course  disastrous  to  my  country? 


n.Tiight  of  the  People  of  the  United  States  to  the  f'ishing  Liberties— 
Effect  of  War  upon  Treaties,  and  Treaty  Stipulations— Peculiar 
character  of  the  Treaty  of  1783. 

When  at  the  negotiations  of  Ghent,  under  an  express  instruction 
Irom  the  government  of  the  United  States,  sooner  to  break  off  the 
negotiation  than  to  surrender  the  fisheries  ;  after  a  noUficatiou  from 
the  British  plenipotentiaries  that  their  government  "did  not  intend 
•'  to  grant  to  the  United  States,  gratuitously,  the  privileges  formerly 
^'granted  to  them  by  treaty,  of  fishing  within  the  limits  of  the  Bri- 
"lish  sovereignty,  and  of  using  the  shores  of  the  British  territories, 
"  for  purposes  connected  with  the  fisheries"— I  suggested  to  my 
colleagues,  as  an  answer  to  be  given  to  that  notification,  that  all  the 
rights  and  liberties,  in  the  fisheries,  having  been  recogniitd  by 


183 

the  peace,  without  an  article  concerning  them  m  w  th  ort™-  aS 
nl«Sl°;r°"'T"'  "»«°™o"«>y>  «o  far  M  their  siCures  ^ouW 
pledge  their  sentiments,  united  with  me  in  asserting  that  nrinc^nS. 
U  certainly  did  not  enter  into  my  dreams,  that  seJen  trar& 
befor/r  f^f'lT""'""  colleagues  would  traduce  thrdoctnne 

cr^eofttlTfrA'''"'^''^^  '^^y  country,  as  equivalenuH 
crime  ol  state,  and  denounce  me  in  the  face  of  the  nation  «.  o 

visionary  di-eamer  for  believing  it.  '  "'  " 

1  first  suggested  it  as  an  alternative,  for  an  article  nroooseH  K« 

another  member  of  the  mission,  to  be  Offered  fr^nersS^^^ 

recognising  agam  those  liberties,  fo.  an  equivalent  recStionn;- 

tfie  same  pnnciple-.I  had  no  objection  to  that  article  because  k 
offered  notlnng  but  what  I  considered  as  necessarHv  flowinrfrnm 
he  principle  itself,  and  because,  if  accepTed.Tt  wou^d^not  3y  W 
secured  the  interest,  and  the  liberties  in  question,  but  have  Dre 
ttem  Itt"  controversy  with  the  ad'verse  partj  coSn  " 
them.  But  as  one  member  of  the  mission  had  raised  very  earnest 
objections  against  the  article,  and  as  I  was  anxiously  desirouT  of 
e"?;  iTo'the'^u'"^'  '?  "^"  as  of  protecting  th'e  t'e  L  oJ 

L^irgre^f^ltij!  -^--^^^-'^^  future firmn<::stdt 
..'\t['e  soundness  of  the  principle  itself  I  firmly  believed  and 
still  believe  :--I  had  proposed  the  assertion  of  it  btforeihTZe 
upon  the  question  whether  Mr.  Gallatin's  projected  article  fihn.^H 
be  offered  to  the  British  plenipotentiaries  Ld' been  taken  lit  w^^ 
«ot  then  accepted,  but  after  the  vote  had  been  taken,  and  a  maT 

^S  l^'^te^oTce'd-^br^^^^^^^  -"^  ^^-^- 

Lsubstitut^ea  for  the  ^arUcVe  whfch  U  l'a\r  SL^^^^^^^^^ 

The  paragraph  as  it  appears  in  the  note  of  10th  November 
1814  from  the  American  to  the  British  plenipotentiaries!  sTgned 
by  all  the  members  of  the  American  mission,  i/as  follows 

'  In  answer  to  the  declaration  made  by  the  British  plenipoten- 
tianes  respecting  the  hnheries.  the  unde™ic..ed,  rcferrinKto  wC 
passed  in  the  conference  of  the  9th  of  Augo  t.  can  only  rtatJ 
that  they  are  not  authorized  to  bring  into  dfscussion  a^y  of  4e 
'yghtsor  ftfcm,e.  which  the  United  States  have  heretofore  «! 
joyed  .n  relation  thereto.  From  their  nature,  and  TZZ  pe 
cuhar  charac.r  of  the  treat)  of  1783,  by  whieh  they  were  rl 
cognised,  no  lurther  stipulation  has  beei  de^^med  oe^celsaTy^ 


\ 


m 


-j5-rp-n- 


184 

*'  the  goreniment  of  the  United  State*,  to  entitle  them  to  the  full 
"  enjoj^ment  of  all  of  them." 

Ab  the  treaty  of  Gh.-nf.  was  concluded  without  any  article  rnlat. 
ing  to  the  fishenee,  the  only  grounds  upon  which  our  rights  and 
liberties  in  them  could  be  maintained  against  Great  Britain  after 
tlie  peace,  were  contained  in  the  principle  asserted  by  this  para- 
grapli.  They  rested,  therefore,  upon  the  nature  of  the  righU  arid 
liberties  of  the  people  of  this  Union,  in  and  to  those  fisheries,  and 
upon  the  peculiar  character  of  the  treaty  recognising  them.  What 
was  the  nature  of  those  rights  and  liberties  ?  And  what  was  the 
peculiar  character  of  that  treaty  ? 

The  nature  of  the  righis  and  liberties,  consisted  in  the  free  par- 
ticipation  in  a  ^Acry.     That  fishery  covering  the  bottom  of  the 
?°  V   "^  rI*'^  ""fo""''   the   island  of  Newfoundland,  the   coasts 
of   New-England    Nova  Scotia,  the  Gulf  of  St.  Lawr^pce,  and 
Labrador,  furnishes  the    richest  treasure  and  the   most   benefi- 
cent  tribute  that  ocean  pays  to  earth  on  this  terraqueous  globe— 
By  the  pleasure  ol  the  Creator  of  earth  and  seas,  it  had  been  con- 
itituted  m  Its  physical  nature  one  fishery,  extending  in  the  open  seas 
around  that  island,  to  little  less  than  five  degrees  of  latitude  from 
ihe  coast,  spreading  along  the  whole  northern  coast  of  this  conti- 
nent, and  insinuating  itself  into  all  the  bays,  creeks,  and  harbours 
to  the  very  borders  of  the  shores.    For  the  full  enjoyment  of  an 
«qual  share  in  this  fishery,  it  was  necessary  to  have  a  nearly  ae- 
neral  access  to  every  part  of  it.     The  habits  of  the  game  which  it 
pureues  being  so  far  migratory  that  they  were  found  at  different 
periods  most  abundant  in  different  places,  sometimes  populating 
the  banks  and  at  others  swarming  close  upon  the  shores.     Tht 
latter  portion  of  the  fishery  had,  however,  always  been  considered 
as  tf.e  most  valuable,  inasmuch  as  it  afforded  the  means  of  drying 
and  curing  the  fish  immediately  after  they  ivere  caught,  which 
could  not  be  eflected  upon  the  banks. 

By  the  law  of  nature  this  fishery  belongP'l  to  the  inhabitants  of 
the  regions  in  the  neighbourhood  of  which  u  was  situated.  P.v  the 
conventional  law  of  Europe,  it  belonged  to  the  European  nations 
which  had  formed  settlements  in  those  regions.  France,  as  the 
first  principal  settler  in  them,  had  long  claimed  the  exclusive  right 
to  It.  Great  Britain,  moved  in  no  small  degree  by  the  value  of  the 
hshery  itselt,  had  made  the  conquest  of  all  those  regions  upon 
France,  and  had  limited  by  treaty,  within  a  narrow  compass,  the 
right  of  France  to  any  share  in  the  fishery.  Spain,  upon  some 
claim  of  prior  discovery  had  for  some  time  enjoyed  a  share  of  the 
fishery  on  the  hanks  ;  but  at  the  last  treaty  of  peace,  prior  to  the 
American  revolution,  had  expressly  renounced  it. 

At  the  commencement  of  the  American  revolution,  therefore, 
this  fishery  belonged  exclusively  to  the  British  nation,  subject  to  a 
cerUin  limited  participation  in  it  reserved  by  treaty  stipulations 


186 

granted,  with  mciLZr.^Zs'ofle^^^^^^^  ^^  been 

iisberiesto  «wW^.A  ,„6/ecr  ViL  rlh.*     .°'  sharing  ,„  these  i 
"the  trade  of  fishing  upon  the  coa«t,?f VVi  ""^  exercise 
"  the  8eas  thereunto  adioimnl-  nn  ^ewEngland,  in  any  of 

"salt  water  rivern  wSe  th?v'  iLX'"'""'  '^  '^'  ^^'^  «e«»%r 
with  the  power  to  use  the  /ho/e  for  uurnor"' ''  ^^'''"  ''^^'^'^ 
fisheries,  was  expressly  granted  m.rh'^rf  ^""'f ^ted  w.th  the 
of  Massachuflclts  Pay  as  it  hi  h  ^^  '"Z'^^'  '"  ^^^  last  charter 
There  was  a  gross  mist Vp  ,,  ^r'" '"•  ^^'''''  '^''^  P'-eceded  it 
kingofG.oatBSnmI;fh\  eint^.r\'^'^  ^hat  the 

fisheries  to  the  people  of  tfc'ovt;r'r''^i''*^  «r,jo^,nent  of  these 

was  their  birth.ri^ht^,Ltt/;S  it  wrth'"""^  ^7'  '' 
38  secured  to  them  by  charter  and  VhoRv*^''' 'P^^'^' ^'g»'t 
Belf  could  deprive  them  of  ^^  ?hfv  M  '/"'l  P''"-''«'"«"t  it- 
acts  which  provoked  and  ju  fi^ft.T  .  ff  ^"^^  °"'^  ^^^  ""«  o^  those 
InMarch  1775,  the  British  narl,  " '^f^'^'"''*'?"  of  Independence. 
"  the  trade  and  commerce  onh  .'  "'  '"^"'"^  V  ""  «^^ *«  '«««'•«*» 
"  and  New  Hampshi^  and  rnl  •''*'^'P'^''  '^  Massachusetts  Bay 
"Inland,  and  Provrde^'ce  "piant  HiT  •''^  f ''"^  *•«"*  and  Rhode- 

"  Britain,  Ireland,  and  the  BriJ^ih  isi;;H  Vu  '^"'^''''''  »«  ^'''^-l 
"to  prohibit  such  provinces  and  rS'  "" ^^  ^^'««*  '"^'««  ^  «nd 
"  fishery  on,the  Banks  ofNeuSndtnT  'J'^"  ^""^'"fe  on  any 

"i::t::^r^-ts  ^--^^t^  ^^^-^  ^^^  ^'^^^'" 

"  his  motioS  by  dociarl  th^;"  '""l  T'  '""^  ^'^^^'^  "  «"PPorted 
"trade  with  thfs  k.wE^i  *^''  .?.,  '  ^'r'^»"«  had  reused  to 
"  them  to  trade  with  any  other  n«l  "^"l  '^'*  ''^^  '^"""^^  "«*  ^"ffe'' 
♦'  the  fishery  on  the  Banks  of  Ni     V      J"  P^''^'^" "■-"•.  he  said  that 

'«  and  all  thl  other!  .n  America  w'sTh".'"'"'  ""J  !.'^-  ^'^'^^  ^-'^'' 
"  Britain,  tlierefore  we  mi/htdl«nll  ^^.^  ""'^^"hted  right  of  Great 
''  although  the  two  houTef had  nCdX  *T  f/  T  ^'^'''^''-  '^^^^ 
"  in  rebellion,  they  had  declared  th-T^'^  '^  ^  Massachusetts  Bay 
"province.  It  Jas  jttMrlt  i  '•  "'  !  •'"^""'*'°  '"  that 
">Aen«."     HansJd'sZl^Zn^^^^^^^^^^  that  province  of  its 

In  the  debates  upon  this  b  H  «  I,?  ,  r^'  ''"^-  *^'  P'  ^^^'  ' 
quence  of  both  parUes  in  the  RHH  h  ^  r  ^''""'  '"""^  «"  ^he  elc 
On  this  bill  Mr.  Ch aries  Fox  sa  d  ^K'r\"\r^^«  called  forth, 
"calculated  to  put  an  end  to  «n ' fh  ?  '  K"  must  have  been 
"  authority  of  Great  BrUain  n.l  t^  '^'"""'t^  *^^  ^^^  legislative 
"  tended  to  show  to  the  colonTes  tlTtr'*  ^'^'^  '^  """^^  be  in- 
"  supreme  authority  which  parhampn^''''"L''''  no  one  branch  of 
" manner,  as  to  render  it  rin.n/  a'^^^  "°^  "^"^^  '"  «"ch  a 
"  sist  it."  Then  afteren LT  n  *u  ^^"^'  ''"^  necessary  to  re- 
«ion.  he  added^' but  the  SSi  !^^''-Pf«'^'«"«  acts  of  oppres- 
'  ^  Americans  that  th!/^^^ttS;J:-  J^--^  Je 


"I 


IMAGE  EVALUATION 
TEST  Ti«^R3ET  (MT-3) 


y 


^ 


A 


/ 


■^ 


■4 


# 


1.0 


I.I 


2.2 


y6    |12 


11:25  ■  1.4 


20 

1.6 


% 


/^ 


^/ 


-J 


>  > 


M 


">> 


W 


u/% 


Photographic 

Sciences 

Corporation 


33  WEST  MAIN  STREET 

WSSSTER.N.Y.  14580 

(716)  872-4503 


L1>^ 


iV 


n\ 


V 


%^\  <>''''^-  '^r;\ 


^>.  ^ 


•^ 


^ 


186 

«  most  oppressive,  and  worse  than  any  of  those  they  h»d  hitherto 
..  ?K-  1  ^^''"*  •*"'**  '''*"^^'^'  *''''*  ^''^  •»'"  was  meant  for  no- 
"rebflHon."  «««Perate  the  colonies  into  open  and  direct 

*«  JJ""-  Bl'-ke  pursuing  the  same  idea,  and  enlarging  upon  it,  appried 
Mwbeth'""  br«"g»»tfo'-'vard  the  bill,  the  passage  from 

.. ^  "I  am  in  blood  ' 

Stept  in  so  far,  that  should  I  wade  no  more, 
"  Returning  were  as  tedious  as  go  o'er." 

He  said  "  that  the  scheme  w».s  new,  and  unheard  of  ih  any  civil- 
ized  nation  ;  to  preserve  your  authority  by  destroying  yourdomi- 

*Jn.ons.  It  was  rather  the  idea  of  hostility  between  independent 
states,  where  one  not  ueing  able  to  conquer  another,  thinks  to  re- 

"fte^'resources^   ^^    ^^  *^'  ''•''  '^^'^''^^'^S  '^  ^^^^^^  and  cutting  off 

On  the  passage  of  the  bill  through  the  house  of  lords  there 
was  a  protest  against  it,  signed  by  sixteen  peers,  among  whom  are 
the  names  of  Rockmgham,  Camden,  and  FitzwiUiam.  Among  the 
reas.  ns  of  this  protest  are  the  following :  * 

"Because  the  people  of  New  England,  besides  the  natural  claim 
of  mankmd  to  the  gifts  of  Providence  on  their  own  coast,  are 
specially  entitled  to  the  fishery  by  their  charters,  which  have 
"  never  been  declared  forfeited"— 

«  l.'ri?!?K"'*  T  ^°"<=«'''«  that  the  attempt  which  has  been  made  to 
bribe  the  nation  into  an  acquiescence  in  this  arbitrary  act  bv 
holding  out  to  them  (by  evidence  at  the  bar,)  the  sp^^s  of 'thj 

"  ^^L?ff  ^'*'"'^'  ^^'^  "Pwardsof  three  hundred  thousand 
pounds  sterling  a  year,  to  be  a  scheme  full  of  weakness  and  in- 

«  1m?ii  of '"decency,  because  it  may  be  suspected  that  thede- 
sire  ot  the  confiscation  has  created  the  guilt :  weak  ber aii«.P  it 
.opposes  that  whatever  is  taken  from  th.^olonil  L  ^f  Se  to 

♦  be  transferred  to  ourselves.  We  may  trample  on  the  rules  of 
justice,  but  we  cannot  alter  the  nature  of  things  We  cannot 
eonvey  to  Great  Britain  the  advantages  of  situatk,;  which  New 
i^ngland  possesses  for  the  fishery." 

But  reason  and  eloquence  were  vain  :  the  bill,  styled  by  Mr 

"  anlMln  S"-^"*^  Pr^'  ''^''^''^  ^""''^  sentenced  theCe 
and  sustenance  of  America,"   was  sanctioned  by  the  then  usual 

mT^Z  "^  ''''''' J^T'  °''  P«'-''«'»«»t;  and  itl  tho  '  pecia^ly 
ment  aned  among  the  charges  against  George  the  third,  in  the  De- 

"  2?»  ,"f '"^«P«"^«"*^«/  "  H«  has  combLd  with  oiherstosub- 

ject  us  to  a  jurisdiction  foreign  to  our  constitution,  and  unacknow- 

edged  by  our  laws  ;  giving  his  assent  to  their  acts  of TeicX 

;;  ;^eg;;'at.on_/or  cutting  off'  our  trade    M  all  paTof'he 

Had  Mr  Russell  been  awemher  of  the  Congress  of  1776  with 
what  admiration  would  that  illustuous  body  have  listened  to  hi's  doc- 


187 

♦him  fffT'*  ?'°  •"'  r«™  °^»«"«"»  'm;,«,;c^^,'^;.*°^rcut 

«ad  Mr.  Russell  been  prime  minister  of  Great  Britain  in  I77i; 
with  how  much  easier  and  speedier  a  process  than  hto        /^ 

of  l.  A       •  P"''^™'"'  .Mntinued  Id  force  duringthe  whole  var 
the  prehminary  artic  es  of  Novembpr   1 7Po    *«     k-  u^u     ™:"**^ 

Se  KpWNe°„'F"  rr?^'  "'/'"'«<"'  "'"«  '«-  »f-turl  to 

.uuuu,  inai  irom  the  17th  of  February  to  the  14tb  of  Aa»ii«f  1770 

t  shoald  or  should  not  be  made  »  sinequa  „on  for  wa^e  «,  ho» 
they  should  secure  the  cmlinuam^:  of  that  portion  SfThe  fish/™ 

rX't'  "^ouM 'fKt'J  ir  '""'''■.""^  "fii^S/co'n'clud'ed'S 

tteT^rn^i't^rrBVtrptrr^^^^^ 

1  I  1  *°'^*^  "^''*^'®  °^  *•*«  preliminaries  of  Novemher  1 782  anH 
also  by  he  corresponding  article  of  the  defiStive"reaVof  i^^^^^^^ 
the  lyhole  of  the  fishing  rights  and  Hbertierwerrsecur Jd  and  rf* 

Srs~th:;S"'  r^r^r'  Pre-existingra'd^^Tt  ^o'^y 
orants-the  variation  of  the  terms  iq  the  article,  seeuring  the  ri^ht 


mmmmm 


188 


ieiish  on  the  banks  of  Newfoundland,  in  the  Gulf  of  St.  Lawrence 
and  at  all  other  places  lo  the  sea.  ard  the  liberty  to  fish  on  the  coasts' 
of  Newfoaodlaod  and  the  other  British  provinces,  arose  onlt  from 
the  circumstance,  that  by  the  same  act  which  recognised  these  li- 
l»ertie3,  (the  ireaty  of  peace,)  the  territorial  jurisdiction  of  those 
provinces,  which  had  until  ♦hen  been  the  same  with  that  of  the  o*her 
British  colonies,  became  to  the  United  States  a/om;^  jurisdiction, 
-he  continuance  of  the  fishing  liberty  was  the  great  object  of  the' 
article  ;  and  the  language  of  the  article  was  accommodated  to  the 
severance  of  the  jurisdictions,  which  was  consummated  by   the 
same  instrument.  It  was  co-instantaneous  with  the  severance  of  the 
jurisdiction  itself;  ^nd  was  no  more  a  grant  from  Greet  Britain 
than  the  right  acknowledged  in  the  other  part  of  the  article ;  or  than 
the  Independence  of  the  United  States,  acknowledged  in  the  first 
article.    It  was  a  continuance  of  possessions  enjoyed  before  •  and 
at  the  same  moment,  and  by  the  same  aci,  under  which  the  United 
States  acknowladged  those  coasts  and  shore.8  as  being  under  a  fo- 
reign jmiadictioa,  Great  Britain  recognised  the  liberty  of  the  peo- 
ple of  the  United  States  to  use  them  for  purposes  connected  with 
the  fisheries. 

This  also  was  the  peculiar  character  of  the  treaty  of  1783,  in 
which  our  title  was  recognised  to  the  rights  and  liberties  in  the 
fisheries.  They  had  all  thfe' qualities  mentioned  by  the  authors  on 
the  laws  of  nations,  as  appropriate  to  periaanent  and  irrevocable 
acknowledgments :  ' 

"  Who  can  dou! ;,"  says  Vattel,  « that  the  pearl  fishery  of  Bah- 
"rem  and  Ceylon,  may  not  lawfully  be  enjoyed  as  property  '  And 
«•  Uiough  a  fishery  for  food  appears  more  inexhaustible,  if  a  nation 

has  a  fishery  on  its  coasts  that  is  particularly  advantageous,  and 
"of  which  It  may  become  master,  shall  it  not  be  permitted  to  ap- 
"propnate  this  natural  advantage  to  itself,  as  a  dependence  on  the 
«♦  country  it  possesses  ;  and  if  there  are  a  sufficient  number  of  fish 
"  to  furnish  the  neighbouring  nations,  of  reserving  to  itself  the  great 
"  advantage  it  may  receive  from  them  by  commerce  ?  But  if,  so 
«  far  from  taking  possession  of  it,  it  has  once  acknowledged  the  com- 
"  mon  right  of  other  nations  to  come  and  fish  there,  it  can  no  longer 
«  exclude  them  from  it ;  it  has  left  that  fishery  in  its  primitive  free- 
**  rn?'  S  '®^^^  "^''^  respect  to  those  who  have  been  inpossessim  of  it. 
**  The  English  not  having  taken  the  advantage/rom  the  beginning, 
*'  of  the  herring  fishery  on  iheir  coast,  it  is  become  common  to  them 
"with  other  nations."     Vattel,  b.  I,  ch.  23,  §  287. 

In  the  third  article  of  the  tteaty  of  1783,  the  liberties  of  the  peo- 
pie  of  the  United  States  in  the  fisheries  within  the  British  xNorth 
American  colonial  jurisdiction  were,  in  the  most  rigorous  sense  of 
the  words,  acknowledged/rom  the  beginning— .for  it  was  by  the  very 
same  act.  which  constituted  it,  as  to  the  United  States,  a  foreign 
jurisdiction.  ''      * 


(I 


189 

Tliat  this  was  the  understanding  of  the  Art:^!^  k    .l    «  . 
vernment  as  »vdJ  as  by  the  WiLn  n!?  f  T  *'^  *«  ^"t*'**  go- 

demp„.tratioo,  by  the  debates'rSre^rutn'J'  ^^Pr^^^^ 
articles.  It  was  made  in  both  Houtes  rmt  Iffu  ^^^  P'^^ehmirary 
to  the  treaty.  la  the  House  of SmisiordNtr'/. "'j^^^'""^ 
as  minister  in  1775,  had  brought  inand  rarZi  .u  '''.^''^'"^Q'^ho 
depriving  us  of  the  fishery  bufwh^  had  now  L  *  °"«?  *'i*  ^''  «>' 
opposition,  said  :  -  By  the  third  artSjplf- "  '^^^^'"  "^^'^e 
reci,,oeay,  given  tL  AmerTcan  'atunrmfei^^^^^^ 
of  every  lc,ud  on  the  Great  Rant  oil  .   ■  "§"*  *°  ^a^e  figfa 

;;  Newfoundland.     But  thi^l    "o  'siirnt^'we^h"''^^  ^^'  '' 
"  them  the  right  of  fjshioe  in  the  Gnlf  nf  Qf  i     ®  ^'*''®  ^'^°  S'^^-n 
;;  other  place!  in  the  sea'^heSe  fhey  t'e  t^LT'  '"^^  «" 
i^rou^A  u*,   the  privilege  of  fishing      Sv  h^^^'J".*  ^"J*'^'^^' 
poM^er  of  even  pSrtakinl  of  the  fifher^wLh'we'tHr"'/-'" 
We  have  not  been  content  with  rp<iioT.in„  .k.     ^^  still  retain. 
"  even  share  what  we  have  l^t      T  S  J^ir^'c^  P°««««sed,  but 
"  to  fi8h  on  that  part  of  the  coL  ofN^^^^f,^'^^'  ^^^^  liberty 
;;  fishermen  shalf use.     AU  thel Llels  fhafth "'  ^'"'^  ^""^^ 
"  or  cure  the  same  on  the  islanrf      rJ?i,-  '        *  .  ^  ^^«  "ot  to  dry 
••  to  take  our  property  for  which  we^h.vl  ^'''?'  '^7  ^''^  «*  "^erty 
;;  of  the  islan  J:     Thils  cerTainly  HtrikinVrn  .'"^  ^'^}  r  ^^»«'°^ 
"  equity  which  we  find  is  the  basis  of        nr       •^''*'^.  °^^^^^  "^eral 
"  where  shall  1  find  an  instance  o?,h,f     '  P'^«'^»^.onal  treaty  !     But 

"  forth  in  the  ineamWe  ?  We  ha4  iivenThTA^^*^'^^  '«  «'«°  «« 
;;  mited  privilege  of  fishing  on  a  U  th'e  coa  ts  ^avf^T  *''^"""- 
our  American  dominions!  But  where  have  fhi  *"''  ''?^^''  °^ 
"  principle  of  recip.ocitv.  given  uflTh/t  •  •  i  ^H^'  "°^«'"  this 
"  of  their  coasts,  bays,  o;^creeks'  I  oS'^^'u^  '^^'^^^"^  ««y 
;;  could  be  found,  were  it  only  'o  giVe  J  coTour  ^t'^'u^  ""  '''''^'^ 
"  procity.  The  advantage  we  shonr:i  h^p'  /  *•"'  ^""^^^^  '"eci- 
"  cannof  be  a  consideradon  ;  for  every  rer-^^"  'v  ^^  '"  "■''"'"' 
"  to  Grent  Britain  seems  to  have  ble7enthl?v  f  P'?'^''^^  advantage 
"and   meaning  of  this  peace    in  ^InV^'l^'S"  *°  t^« '"tent 

"should  have'thoughtit'^uld  haveb/enT'"'''V''^5^™«  * 
••  tion  not  to  have  given  without  thllen  Jl  f  ^  °^  administra- 
"  8ion  which  they  could  never  demand  «  T'^.^^^K^^^^  ?«'"'»•«- 
-  at  a  loss  to  consider  ho^^e  couTd  "/"'t  nr"h^  '"'^^f''''  '  «"» 
"  as  a  right,  when  they  assumed  an  if h!'  7  ^''^^  ^""''^  ^^'^i™  it. 
'•  rated  the^  from  our^soTerignty  "      ^'"^'"'^  ""^'""^  ^««  ««Pa- 

In  this  speech,  fhe  whole  article  is  conoi^Ar^J  -„       • 
concession  of  British  property     nor  U^hll      ^  ^"^  "nprovidenfe 
est  distinction  in  the  natureonhP^r»nM   f  ^  suggested  the  slight- 
on^he  banks,  -d  thV^r^^^ote^^^^^^^^^^^ 

"  by  Britain,  is  in  the  nex  aSo    Z     a  / v  '^'  '''"''"  '•'''«'««^ 
"  right  inhe;ent  in  the  Amerl  ans   Xh'tt '  \^'  'V^"^'^  ^  «     ' 
'*  subjects,  they  arc  .  c.«.Sr;^t:::S^;^  ^ 


190 

*''  other  hand  being  reserved  to  British  subjects  to  approach  theiiT 
"  shores,  for  the  purpose  of  6shing,  in  this  reciprocal  treaty." 

In  the  replies  of  the  ministerial  members  to  these  objections, 
there  is  not  a  word  attempting  to  contradict  them,  or  hinting  at  a 
distinction  in  the  tenure  of  the  title  between  the  right  and  the  li- 
berty. 

Sncli  was  the  nature  of  the  rights  and  liberties  of  the  people  of 
(he  United  States  in  the  fisheries,  and  such  the  peculiar  character 
of  the  treaty  of  1783,  by  which  they  bad  been  recognised.    The 
princfple  asserted  by  the  Anrerican  plenipotentiaries  at  Ghent ;  dis- 
avowed and  combated  by  Mr.  Russell,  in  his  letter  of  Uth  Febru- 
ary, 1815,  aifd  now  treated  by  him  as  the  dream  of  a  visionary, 
was,  that  these  rights  and  liberties,  thus  recognised,  could  not  be 
forfeited  by  a!  war,  and  that  no  new  stipulation  was  necessary  to 
secure  them.     The  vrhoie  fishery,  as  well  without  as  within  the 
special  territorial  jurisdiction,  had  been  the  common  property  of 
the  British  empire  :  so  had  been  the  whole  territory  to  which  it 
had  been  incidental.     By  the  treaty  of  separation,  the  territory 
was  divided,  and  two  separate  sovereign  jurisdictions  arose.    The 
fishery  bordered  upon  both.     The  jurisdictions  were  marked  out 
by  the  boundary  line  agreed  upon  by  the  second  article  of  the 
treaty.    The  fishery  was  disposed  of  in  the  third  artrcle.    As  com* 
mon  property,  it  was  still  to  be  held  in  coonnon.    A^  a  ^  essession, 
it  was  to  ber  heli!  ty  the  people  of  the  United  States,  as  it  had  beea 
held  before.     It  was  not  like  the  lands  partitioned  out  by  the  same 
treaty,  &  corporeal  possession,  but  in  the  technical  language  of  the 
English  law,  an  incorporeal  hereditament,  and  in  that  of  the  civil 
law,  a  right  of  mere  faculty,  consisting  in  the  power  and  l-berty  of 
exercising  a  trade,  the  places  in  which  it  is  exercised  being  occu- 
pied only  for  the  purposes  of  the  trade.    Now  the  right  or  liberty 
to  enjoy  this  possession,  or  to  exercise  this  trad^,  could  no  more  be 
affected  or  impaired  by  a  declaration  of  war.  than  the  right  to  the 
territorj'  of  the  nation.     The  interruption  to  the  exercise  of  it  dur- 
hig  the  war,  could  no  more  affect  the  right  or  liberty,  than  the  oc- 
cupation by  the  enemy  of  territory  could  a^iect  ♦'*e  right  to  that. 
The  right  to  territory  could  be  lost  only  by  abant'     nient  or  renun- 
ciation in  the  treaty  of  peace  ;  i»y  agreement  to  a  new   boundary 
line,  or  by  acciuiescence  in  the  occupation  of  the  territory  by  the 
enemy.     The  fishery  liberties  could  be  lost,  only  by  express  re- 
nunciation of  them  in  the  treaty,  or  by  acciuiescence  in  the  princi- 
ple that  they  were  forfeited,  which  would  have  been  a  tacit  rcnun« 
ciation. 

I  hope  it  will  not  be  deemed  an  assertion  of  infallibility,  when  I 
say,  that  I  present  this  argument  to  my  country,  both  as  to  the  na- 
ture of  our  rights  and  liberties  in  the  tisheries,  and  as  to  the  pecu- 
liar character  of  the  treaty  by  which  they  were  recognised,  with  a 
perfect  conviction  that  it  cannot  be  answered.  But  if  I  am  mistaken 
in  that,  sure  I  am,  that  it  never  has  been  answered,  either  by, the 
British  government  or  by  Mr.  Russell. 


191 

If  admitted,  it  leaves  the  question,  whether  the  treaty  of  1 783 
J^as  or  wag  not  abrogated  by  the  late  war  ?  a  mere  question  of  uaf 
lesg  speculation,  or  of  national  pride.     That  fiW/irsSesmPn  nn!! 
J.ar.8t8  should  manifest  some  impatience,  andset^e    p^^^^^^^^^ 
to  cause  /«.Mreaty  to  disappear  from  the  archives  oTtheir  nat^na 
mun,ment«    .s  not  at  all  surprising.    That  an  ^».'r,W  state  m"  a 
should  partake  of  the  same  anxiety,  is  not  so  natural  thm,  Jh  J? 
may  be  traced  to  the  same  system  of  public  law^^S  tS' 
oerce  ""d  lighenes  of  the  colonies,  before  th^  Revolution    were 
supposed  to  be  held  at  the  mere  pleasure  of  the  Brit   h  crown 
■    It  IS  not  necessary  to  deny  that  the  treaty  of  1 783  was  as  a  mSi 
compact,  abrogated  by  the  late  war,  so^long  as  wTth^e  asse Zn 
of  Its  being  so  abrogated,  is  not  coupled  the  assertion  thatTnv  one 
rght  or  liberty,  acknowledged  in  it  as  belonging  to  the  people  of 
tl.e  United  States,-  was  abrogated  with  it.     But  wLn  the  Br  tish 
government  or  Mr.  Russell  assert  that  all  the  other  right'  and    ,^ 
bertie*  acknowledged  and  secured  to  the  United  sEbvthi^ 

SfiT"'^  f  l^r-^'^"'  «^^^P^  °-  portion  of  I L  prosper? 
in  tne  fisheries,  sUpglated  ,n  one  half  of  one  article,  I  say  there '"s 

nothing  either  in  the  nature  of  the  liberty  contested/or  in^he  Irt 
ilfZ  "'•rf'^."  recognised,  that  will  Iwarrant  their  4ist  net  on 
that  the  whole  treaty  was  one  compact  of  irrevocable  acknowledV 
ments  consummated  by  the  ratification  ;  and  that  the  thfrSTrUcfe 
»n  particular,  adjusted  the  rights  and  liberties  of  the  parlies  in  and 
to  one  common  property,  of  which  neither  party  could  ever  X- 
wai^s  divest  the  other  without  his  consent.  ' 

When,  therefore,  the  British  government  and  Mr.  Russell  assert 
hat  war  abrogates  all  treaties,  and  every  article  of  everv  treatv 
they  have  yet  proved  nothing  for  ^heir  argument ;  they  must  pro! 
ceed  to  affirm,  that  with  the  abrogation  of  the  treaty  by  war  all  the 
rights  and  liberties  recognise^  in  the  treaty  as  befong^ng  to*  ei  heJ 
party,  are  likewise  abrogated.    And  herein  lies  the  fjlacy  of  heir 
argument.     We  ask  them,  was  the  acknowledgment  of  the   InZ 
pendence  of  the  United  States,  in  the  first  artfcle  of  the  treaty  o? 
1783  abrogated  by  the  war  of  1812  ?    Yes,  says  Mr,  Russell    but 
the  Independence  of  the  United  States  resledlpon  their  own  Se- 
claration,  and  not  upon  the  acknowledgment  of  Great  Britain    V/ith 
regard  to  all  other  nations,  undoubtedly  our  Independence  rests 
upon  our  own  Declaration,  for  they  never  contested  it      But  Great 
tui^^?fui  ""^^f^  a.^ar  of  seven  years  against  it,  and  it  was  by  vir- 
tue  of  that  article  of  the  treaty  aloi,e,  that  she  was  bound  to  acknow- 
ledge  oyr  Independence.    And  this  constituted  one  of  the  peculiar. 
Ities  of  the  treaty  of  1 783.     Our  treaty  with  France,  of  1 7^78  con, 
in?!^  "m  ^'' '1^  8t»P»'«iing  the  acknowledgment  of  our  Independ, 
hlT:    .    /'J*'^  '*''^!f '^  ^^^,  necessary  with  any  nation  which  never 

cfthlu    V  \J.u^  ""f  ^'''^  ^"^«'"''t  ^««  the  whole  object 
Pf  that  treaty.     All  tl»e  other  articles  were  merely  arrangements  oi 

te^uJ^f  f''j"8traent8  of  consequences  flowing  from  the  recognition 
•f  the  Arst  jm:Up1?,    If  the  acknowledgment  of  our  Indepfnd^Jcf 


mwmmm'^'i' 


1921 

b  the  fiTBt  arUcle  of  the  treaty  of  1783,  wrs  abrognted  by  (he  war 
Of  1812,  from  the  firrt  hour  of  its  declaration  by  CoiigrcM,  Grent 
Bntain  might  bnye  treated  us  as  rebels  nn  she  had  done  tliroiiali  the 
whole  war  of  the  Revolution. 

Waa  the  boundary  line  of  the  treaty  of  1783  abrogated  by  the 
war  of  1812  ?  The  Ainericnn  plenipotentiaries  certainly  did  ool 
10  consider  it,  when  they  spoke  of  it  in  one  of  their  notes,  as  tho 
line  "  as  it  now  is."  Nor  did  the  British  plenipotentinries  so  consi. 
der  it,  when  they  demiuided  the  express  stipulntion  of  another  line, 
by  tho  treaty  then  to  be  concluded.  They  claimed  it,  not  because 
the  boundary  of  the  treaty  of  1783  was  abrogated,  but  by  the  right 
of  conouest,  as  a  cession  of  our  territory  ;  and  the  demand  was 
resisted  on  that  ground.  The  articles  in  tho  treaty  of  Ghent, 
which  refer  to  the  boundary  line,  do  not  rnnew  or  confirm  the  arti- 
cles of  the  treaty  of  1703,  which  they  recite.  They  refer  to 
them,  as  reference  is  ilways  made  to  treaties  in  full  force,  and 
merely  add  new  stipulatioos  for  ascertaining  the  line  described  by 
then^,  according  to  the  true  intent  and  meaning  of  that  treaty. 

If,  then,  none  of  the  rights,  liberties,  or  possessions,  rccognissd 
by  the  first  and  second  articles  of  the  treaty  of  1783,  as  belonging 
to  the  United  States,  were  abrogated  by  the  war  of  1812,  by  what 
light,  and  upon  what  principle,  could  Mr.  Russell  consider  tho 
fishmg  liberty,  recognised  as  belonging  to  them  by  the  third  article, 
to  be  entirely  at  an  end^  without  a  new  stipulation  for  its  revival. 
The  whole  of  the  third  article,  concerning  the  fisheries,  was  aa 
much  a  recognition  of  pre-existing  rights,  liberties,  and  posses- 
sions, as  the  hrst  and  second  articles.     With  regard  to  that  identi- 
cal portion  of  the  article,  which  Mr.  Russell  considers  entirely  at 
an  end,  the  words  of  lord  Loughborough,  which  I  have  cited,  prove 
that  It  was  universally  considered,  at  the  time  when  the  treaty  of 
1783  was  made,  as  a  recognition  of  existing  rights,  as  mqch  as  all 
the  rest.    Mr.  Russell  says  that  the  fiabing  liberty,  within  exclusive 
British  jurisdiction,  was  not  necessary  to  perfect  the  jurisdiction  of 
the  United  States.     What  then  ?    It  was  not  a  perfection  of  jurist 
dictions,  but  ^  division  of  common  property.     The  whole  fishery 
had  been  the  joint  property  ol  both  parties.    When  the  separation 
was  to  be  consuumated,  it  was  agreed  that  that  property  should 
$till  be  held  in  common  ;  that  the  people  of  the  United   Siatea 
thould  continue  to  enjoy  the  right  of  exercising  the  faculty  upon 
the  banks  and  open  seas,  and  should  have  the  liberty  of  exercising 
It  m  the  unsettled  bays,  creeks,  and  harbours,  where  they  had  be- 
fore exercised  it  as  British  subjects,  but  which  were  thenceforth  to 
be  Within  a  foreign  jurisdiction.    There  is  nothing  in  the  import  of 
the  term  liberty,  nothing  in  the  limitations  expressed  in  the  article, 
fiolhing  mthe  principles  of  English  law,  or  of  the  laws  of  nations 
applicable  to  fisheries,  which  can  warrant  the  pretension  that  this, 
more  than  the  rest  of  the  article,  or  than  any  other  article  in  the 
Ureaty,  was  a  grant  of  privilege,  revocable  at  the  pleasure  of  Great 
BntaiD,  or  forf(pitab|e  by  w^r.  ft|r.  Russell,  i^  his  letter,  frcqqept- 


193 

of  we«k„e..  in  hi,  Zument      An  «!^      "r^"  '*"'^  ""  indication 

the  diMlncHon  be  wee*  K.ea^i",/oTr'  ^''«"!;''  r^"^^''  "'"^k* 
iog  manner :  "'•""""«  ^^  ^^"^  '*<"'d«,  in  the  folloir- 

•'  elam,  for  it  is  set  above  oil  niZ.lnr.  "^    i    i       **?"•'  =  '* '"  "*»»  « 

'     ;;  «  /'n:.>.V.^..  for  it  CHnnot  l^^^  eT^^    i v"     urltBr/''*''"  I  "^'^  *'  '* 

••  unconditionally  be  taken  «wny  IwrnrlC.' '         '  ''""«•  "*"* 

Such  i«  the  purport  of  thc'"wonMif'"t  *^."""*^""--''"<  "'""t. 
and  by  theap^icK of  ilt  Thrtltt;"  /^.If r^'  'f"'?  ' 
power  which  the  Americans  were  to  o  j^v  wiJhin  h  J  *?  '^* 

diction,  to  carry  on  the  tieherv  it  i«  „»?^*  **'*'  "ritinh  juris- 

•negotiators  of  the  treaty  mi.took    .IT   i  "  ^'^P'e«"n'ed  that  the 
in  any  manner  ayn^'mlTwllh  a  pivS  "  ""'  "'^^  "'^'^  '^  - 

treS:wuttiTc:v;:o^..^^ 

diMolved  by  the  war  of  1  hi"  i  "^^  "'''"'J!'  «<^  "A^  was  totally 
liberty  wit  J„  BriS  iLdicti  ,n7ti.  1 .7S '  '"^r  ^''"^  "'«  ««'''"J 
the  treaty,  was  abrogate  wht'  Tlflf^  ''''  «!"rd  article  of 
yr  the  right  to  it  cfuld  not  be  forf^ted  iy 'wVr  '"th"/  ''^°''  '^"^ 
of  Its  exercise  during  the  war  coud  nn  «^Lo    ^    /  ^  'I'^Peni'ion 

beea  very  soleL.ly  .f/cy  S^he  &.l's,'',°'  ""•'if '>  ,  "  •■»• 

"  which  Ibey  are  proWdoJ    td  d„ri„ „T'  L'  Rf^'^'j" ''«'  f" 

cond  vaa  the  soveraim  ivi  h  »hnl  i.         '  ""''/'■«<'«ri-l'  Ihe  <e. 
contrndici,  (he  doSeThnl  »»r  Hi.lr"  "S*"""'?""-    "  "ot  only 

for  the  purpo'e  0?  dS?.,Z  or  ^f  IIP,-""  "'"'"^  ■•""■•'=''  '• 
faith.  "^  "Wgumng  or  of  palhatlng  a  violation  of  good 

thauX?o7tt"b:i;!;rl:eriL'n''r- " """' «""-«"'  «f 

.ne.ie»  and  tba,  nVc'X^rd'e  't^tbirto';"'  'tT  "'* 
*nn  tvnter.  „p,„  .he  W.  of  „.,io„..  ha^i'e^'JaT.i.i.IjL"."' 


194 

and  expressly  luid  it  down,  that  all  articles  of  a  treaty  made  during 
war,  or  having  in  contemplation  the  state  of  war,  as  that  in  which 
they  are  to  take  etfect,  remain  in  full  force,  and  are  not  abrogated 
by  war.  This,  therefore,  cohstitiites  a  large  class  of  artitiles  of 
treaties  which  are  not  ahrogatod  by  war.  Another  class  of  arti- 
cles, equally  privileged  from  such  abrogation,  are  nil  executed  ttipu- 
lations — Cessions  of  territory,  demarcations  of  boundary,  acknow- 
ledgments of  pre-existing  riplits and  liberties,  belong  to  this  class— 
and  in  it  are  included  the  first,  second,  and  tbird  articles  of  the 
treaty  of  1783. 

All  articles  which  have  been  cxecutrd,  mny  indeed  be  said  to  be 
abrogated  by  the  execution  itself.  The  transaction  between  the 
parties  is  consummated.  In  the  case  nf  a  cession  of  territory  when 
the  possession  of  it  has  been  delivered,  the  article  of  the  treaty  is 
no  longer  «  compact  between  the  parlies,  nor  can  a  subsequent  war 
between  them  operate  in  any  manner  upon  it. 

So  of  all  articles  the  purport  of  which  is  the  acknowledgment  by" 
one  party  of  a  pre-existing  right  belonging  to  another.  The  en- 
gagement of  the  acknowledging  party  is  consummated  by  the  ratifi- 
chtion  of  the  treaty.  It  is  no  longer  an  executory  contract ,  but  a. 
perfect  right  united  with  a  vested  possession,  is  thenceforih  in  one 
party,  and  the  acknowledgment, of  the  other  is  in  its  own  nature  irre- 
vocable. As  a  bargain,  the  article  is  extinct ;  but  the  right  of  the 
party  in  whose  favour  it  was  made,  is  complete,  and  cannot  be  af- 
fected by  a  subsequent  war. 

A  grant  of  a  facultative  right,  or  incorporeal  hereditament,  and 
specifically  of  a  right  of  fishery,  from  one  sovereign  to  another,  is 
an  article  of  the  same  description.  It  is  analogous  to  a  cession  of 
territory,  and  is  in  fact  a  partial  and  quaJifled  cession.  The  right 
is  consummated  by  the  ratification  of  the  treaty.  The  possession 
is  vested  by  the  exercise  of  the  faculty.  Mere  war  between  the 
parties,  can  neither  impair  the  right  of  one  party  nor  effect  the  re- 
vocation of  the  grant  by  the  other. 

So  that  whether  the  third  article  of  the  treaty  of  1783  be  consi- 
dered ae  an  acknowledgment  of  pre-existing  liberties,  or  as  a  grant 
of  them,  to  be  exercised  within  British  jurisdiction,  it  was  in  its 
nature  permanent  and  irrevocable,  liable,  under  no  circumstances 
whatever,  to  be  annulled  by  the  wifl  of  Great  Britain,  and  capable 
•f  being  lost  to  the  United  States  in  no  other  manner  than  by  their 
own  express  renunciation  or  tacit  abandonment. 

I  have  already  cited  a  passage  from  Vattel,  to  show,  that  when  a 
iDation  has  once  acknowledged  the  right  of  other  nations  to  share  iii 
M  Jiahery  vfithin  its  territorial  jurisdiction,  it  can  never  afterwards 
exclude  them  from  it  without  their  consent.  What  says  he  of  grants 
by  treaty  ? 

«*  Treaties,  which  do  not  relate  to  objects  of  reiterated  occur- 
"  rence,  but  to  transitory,  single  acts,  immediately  consummated, 
"  conventions,  compacts,  which  are  accomplished  once  for  all,  and 
"  not  by  successive  acts,  as  soon  as  they  have  received  their  e5(e- 


* 

"  ejition,  arfithing.  consummated  anu  finished.     If  thev  are  ralirf 
hey  have  .n  the.r  nature  an  effect  perpetual  andTrreZcabU^ 

In  hke  manner,  as  coon  m  a  right  ie  transferred  hvIirTf 
•'  vention,  it  no  longer  belongs  to  the  sti^  S  h  ^      T/"*  ""T 
"  affair  is  linished  and  concluded?"   Va    1  6  2    .J   I'.T.oo  '*'* 

"But  we  m«t  not  here  confound  treaties  or  ani.^^  ^  '^l'-  u 
;'  bearing  the  obligation  of  reciproc^  engat^eVcaT^^^^^^^ 
■  l>y  ho  concinued  existence  ot' the  contJafrg  power"  wi  ^  .     ^ 

ce.  ved  them,  should  afterwards  be  conquered  or  Za  in  «1    »k 
.         '  «te~C<,..«.„terj, «»  Burlama,ui,  Pan  4,  c*  9,Tl6h 

cognised  in  it,  as  belonging  to  the  United  Stal'  tliT  Z  T 
abrog  t  d  ,h  it,  and  con'sequently^l'fh' t'S.f  co^  u^  oH  V^^ 
twf  •/!«*'°'''^\"''Sument,that  the  fishing  liberty  soured  td 
the  United  States,  by  the  third  article,  was  enLlyatan^,TM 

rrncinl?of£7''"-^r''^'-^'"^^"^«''  ^^^  -  unw^arranld  by  any 
principle  of  the  laws  of  nations,  as  it  was  Dernicion..  tn  tuJ^it^ 

ny  which  it  was  secured,  as  was  expresslv  assprfp.1  h.,\iZ  a^ 
can  plenipotentiaries  ;  and  the  ^ame'^pSpts  l^id^iatLn^^^^ 
to  a  new  stipulation  then,  and  do  appL  to  h^ew  "  fnuTatfon^,'^^'*''* 
made,  as  djd  apply  to  the  third  article  of  tS^tS  7 m? 
When  Mr.  Russell  says  thai  I  appeal  to  a  class  of  treaties  whth 
are  not  known  to  exist,  he  only  proves  that  it  would  hllllir 
him  to  revise  his  studies  of  diplomatic  Ld  inte  nTonaHar  '  '"' 

The  doctrme  that  all  treaties  and  all  rights  acknnwlpnll^  u 
artjcles  of  treaties,  are  dissolved  by  war,  hTn^l  always  bet  he'j 
to  be  sound  even  by  the  British  government.     In  the  debatesin 
parhament  on  the  peace  of  Amiens,  lord  Auckland  said- 

"  Iw^  ^'^  '^°^i  '"^^^  ^^^  '^'"'^^  °f ''^  the  first  publicists  on  these 

ubjects,  and  had  corrected  himself  in  a  mistake,  stil    prevalent 

n  the  minds  oi  many,  who  state,  in  an  unqualified  sense  that  aH 

-treaties  between  nations  are  annulled  by  lar,  and  S be   «« 

'•  daily  renewed  if  meant  to  be  in  force  on  the  return  7p«ce% 


•  V. 


^,  190 

J,  f"i9  true,  that  treaties  in  the  nature  of  compact*  or  concessioni, 
^  '^  -»  ••  the  enjoyment  of  which  has  been  interrupted  by  the  war,  and 
**  has  not  been  renewed  at  the  pacitication,  are  rendered  null  by 
'  ••  the  war.  But  compacts  not  interrupted  by  the  course  and  effect 
*'  of  hostilities,  such  as  the  regttlated  exercise  of  a  fishery  on  the  re- 
"  $pective  coasts  of  the  belligerent  powers,  the  stipulated  right  of  cut* 
"  ting  wood  in  u  piirticular  district,  or  possessing  rights  of  territory. 
'•  heretofore  ceded  by  treaty,  are  certainly  not  destroyed  or  injured  by 
"  war." 

And  again  :  <*  It  is  not  true  that  our  non-renewal  of  the  Dutch 
**  treaties  will  liberate  the  ships  and  vessels  of  that  republic  from 
"  the  ancient  practice  of  itriking  their  flag  to  British  ships  of  war, 
'*  in  the  British  seas.  That  practice  did  not  depend  on  the  treaty 
"of  1784,  nor  even  on  the  treaty  of  Breda,  in  1667.  Those  treo' 
*•  <!>«  were  only  recognitions  of  an  existing  right.  And  the  treaty  of 
*'  1667  expressly  stated  that  the  Dutch  tliig  shall  be  struck  in  such 
*•  manner  as  the  same  hath  been  formerly  observed  in  any  time 
"  whatsoever.  The  same  remark  would  be  found  applicable  to  the 
"sixth  article  of  the  treaty  of  1784,  by  which  the  States  General 
"  promised  not  to  obstruct  the  navigation  of  the  British  jbjects  i„ 
*•  the  eastern  seas.  That  article  waa  no  compact  or  grant ;  it  was 
"  only  an  acknowledgment  of 'a  pre-existing  and  undoubted  right ; 
*•  and  was  merely  meant  as  a  notice  to  our  merchants  that  they 
"  wojld  not  be  disturbed  in  the  exercise  of  that  right." 

Lastly  :  "  He  had  already  slated  the  incontrovertible  principle, 
"  that  treaties  or  compacts,  the  exercise  of  which  is  not  interrupt- 
"  ed  by  the  course  of  the  war,  remain  in  full  effect  on  the  return 
*'  of  peace.  Our  privileges  in  the  Bay  of  Honduras  had  been  given 
"  in  lieu  of  ancient  and  acknowledged  I'ights  in  the  Bay  of  Cam- 
'*  peachv.  Those  privileges  having  been  enjoyed  without  disturb- 
**  ance  during  the  war,  are  confirmed  and  established. 

The  earl  of  Carnarvon — a  member  of  the  opposition,  said  in  the 
same  debate  : 

"  It  has  been  nearly  admitted  by  ministers,  that  former  treaties, 
by  the  omission  of  renewal,  are  abrogated  :  tny  noble  relation 
(lord  Grenvillo)  does  not  go  that  length,  but  he  thinks  we  have 
lost  our  title  deeds  in  most  cases,  and  has  affirmed,  that  we  have 
thereby  totally  lost  the  gum  trade.  I  am  far  from  thinking  any 
of  these  conseqi.ence8  follow  simply  from  the  tacit  omission  of 
the  renewals.  War  does  not  abrogate  any  right,  or  interfere 
with  the  right,  though  it  does  with  the  exercise,  but  such  as  it 
professes  to  litigate  by  war.  All  the  writers  on  the  law  of  nations 
distinctly  affirm,  that  peace  has  only  relation  to  the  war  which  it 
terminates,  leaving  all  the  former  relative  situations  of  the  two 
countries  as  before  the  war;  and  that  former  treaties,  though  not 
expressly  renewed,  remain  in  full  elfect,  if  noi  expresply  abro- 
gated in  the  treaty  of  peace,  or  by  private  consent  and  acknow- 
ledgment." 


(( 

« 
(( 
t< 
<( 
(t 
<( 
it 
« 


Mm 


W7 

**  the  lord^     icellor  (EMod)  laid  that  if  by  the  oci^iiion  of  thVi 
«  men  .on  ol  former  treaties  they  were  .11  to  VcoJiide  S  a!  ab^ 

had  no  difficulty  in  wying  that  en  addre..  .hould  be  voteS  to  hi! 

«^«je.ty  praying  that  he  would  diiwi..  his  preaent  miniate™  from 

his  councils  forever.     But  he  trusted  that  the  fact  wa,  fw  othT 

;;  w.,e.  and  that  the  conduct  of  mini«te«  de.er.edr,uch  ce„^ 

« llfj  'V^^  ''*?  L"  "'"''•  *'''*'  "ooduraa  became  the  rightful  pro- 
-Sn»?  ^^^k'""/  ^"^T  t^y  ^^o^que-t.  end  was  never%ede!  to 
«  Ch  Tr  "".  ''tj'r^'dgmcnt,  on  the  part  of  the  ourt  of 
"fsth^H^Tr^'^^^''''  "^^'''  cut  logwood.  In  proportion 
..  ;l  k-  L*  w  .*  ^°?1"«t  '^a^  paramount  to  the  effect  of  treati.-s 
'  our^iliht  n"'  \t'  ''''r'  specifically  abandoned  and  reJ^ed; 

Deen  mentioned  in  the  definitive  i/eaty." 

And  in  the  debate  in  the  House  tf  Commons,  speakine  of  thi« 
•ame  right  of  cutting  logwood  in  the  B.y  of  Honduras,  lord  Hawke! 
bury  (the  present  earl  of  Live  rpoc  1)  said,  " 

<i  i^J,**®  ^""^ '"'  'r"*  "^^^  "^^^  '^e^'e*'  *o  "«  ^y  the  Spaniards  ia 

quito Shore;  therefore  it  is  a  settlement  which  we  possess  of 
^  light,  and  to  which  the  Spaniards  were  as  much  bound  to  refer 

8ion.       Hansard  s  Parliamentary  Hutory,  vol.  StJ,  A.  D.  1802. 
The  doctrine  of  the  non-abrogation  even  of  commercio/ treaties,  by 
war    has  been  ma.nta.ned  by  British  statesmen  and  lawyers  oj 
tTo^P  JnT"''  /^^l  ^"""^  sometimes  carried  it  furih^r  thau 
hZ   ffu  ""'"'^J'  *•''''*'  ^««"  ^^'"^y  to  «dmit.     Thus  in  the  de- 
1?^    K  .*         '^  °^CoT°"'  ''"  *''«  '''>»^'"*  treaty  of  peace  of 
S;  if  r*"  *^'''"1'^  ^P'*'"'  ""^  •«'•««»  B"tain.  Mr.  Fox.  al 
uding  to  the  renewal  in  that  treaty  of  the  treaty  of  Utrecht ;  and 
to  the  period  of  two  years  from  the  Ist  of  January,  1784,  fired  for 
the  negotiation  of  a  treaty  of  conunerce,  said :  "  /ending 'the  negt 
"Inl^^"'     T?  ••^««o?«hle  to  suppose  the  tLree  nations  would,  in 
commercial  transactions,  be  bound  by  the  treaty  of  Utrecht :  and 
^^  this  he  imagined  was  the  sense  of  the  British  ministers.  But  sup- 
«  ^rrZ^        two  years  should  expire  before  the  new  commercial 

««  wh»?^  M*'  ''lu"'^  ^'"''^  P'**^^' « l^^'tion  would  naturally  arise. 
^^  What  would,  in  this  case,  become  of  the  treaty  of  Utrecht  ?   For 

«  TJrn  '"'"'*  "/  "^'T"  '^"'  ^^^  ''■^"'y  e/"  Utrecht  would,  in  such 
-  thnTfK-  f  ranamin  full  force  ;  but  he  knew,  on  the  other  hand. 
'«  V-u  *u  "''*•  •'^^"  ^^?  *'P'"'°"  0^  the  courts  of  Madrid  and 
rt  Hon!  i  ';,  ?'"'l^"'  ""^  '^^'^^  contended,  that  if  the  negotia- 
'  tions  should  end  ,v,tho„t  producing  any  new  rommercial  anrange-       " 


a 


.  i. 


i9$ 


''*ent«,  the  treaty  of  Utrecht  would,  in  that  case,  be  completely 
annulled."     HanawdU  Parliamentary  Hi$tory,  vol.  23,  p.  1 147. 
In  the  year  1686,  a  treaty  was  concluded  between  Louis  the  14th 
and  James  the  second,  regulating  the  commercial  intercourse  be- 
^een  the  respective  subjects  and  possr  sions  of  France  and  Great 
Britam  in  Americc.    It  w«8  known  by  the  denomination  of  the 
Treaty  of  Neutrality.  Two  years  after  its  conclusion,  occurred  the 
revolution  by  which  James  was  expelled  from  the  British  throne, 
and  a  war  between  the  two  nations,  which  terminated  in  1695,  by 
the  peace  of  Ryswick.    At  the  commencement  of  the  next  cen- 
tury, broke  o  t  the  war  of  the  Spanish  succession,  which,  after 
raging  twelve  yeara,  closed  in  1714,  by  the  treaty  of  Utrecht.  The 
trea^  of  neutrality  had  not  been  specifically  renewed  or  named, 
cither  by  the  treaty  of  Ryswick  or  by  that  of  Utrecht :  yet  on  the 
3d  of  June,  1728,  the  attorney  and  solicitor  general,  Yorke  and 
TMot,  gave  their  official  <^inion  that  the  treaty  of  neutrality  was 
still  in  force,  and  instructions,  founded  upon  its  validity,  were  "iven 
to  the  governors  of  the  British  colonies  in  America. 

!  *  1741,  commenced  the  war  of  the  Pragmatic  Sanction,  or  for  the 
Austrian  succession,  which  finished  in  1748,  by  the  peace  of  Aix 
la  Chapelle — five  years  after  which,  the  attorney  and  solicitor  gen- 
eral, sir  Dudley  Ryder,  and  Murray,  afterwards  lord  Mansfield, 
gave  It  as  their  official  opinion  that  the  treaty  of  neutrality  of  1686, 
was  then  yet  in  force. 

The  same  question  occurred  in  1765,  after  the  close  of  the  se- 
ven years'  war,  when  the  attorney  and  solicitor  general,  Norton  and 
De  Grey,  gave  it  as  their  opinion  that  the  treaty  of  neutrality  was 
«o<then  m  force;  but  the  advocate  general,  sir  James  Marriott, 
gave  it  as  his  opinion  that  it  was,  and  supported  his  opinion  by  an 
elaborate,  ingenious,  and  forcible  argument. 

These  opinions  are  all  to  be  found  in  the  Second  volume  of  Chal- 
mers's  Collectiori  of  Opinions  of  Eminent  Lawyers,  pp.  339—366 ; 
and  as  the  result  of  the  whole,  Chitty,  in  his  Treatise  on  the  Laws 
of  Commerce  and  Manufactures,  a  work  published  in  1820,  says  ; 
"  It  has  been  considered  that  a  general  commercial  treaty,  not  lim' 
"  ited  by  its  terms  to  a  particular  time,  is  only  suspended  by  a  v/ar, 
"  and,  that  upon  the  return  of  peace,  it  will  tacitly  revive,  by 
*«  implication,  unless  there  be  an  express  declaration  to  the  con- 
"trary."     Chitty,  p.  46.* 

By  the  concurrent  testimony,  therefore  of  the  writers  upon  the 
laws  of  uations,  and  of  the  most  eminent  British  statesmen  and 
lawyers  of  the  present  age,  the  genera!  position  that  war  abrogates 
all  treaties,  autl  the  particular  inference  from  it,  that  by  the  abro- 
gation of  treaties,  the  rights  or  liberties  stipulated  in  them  are  con- 

*  Foi  the  references  to  these  British  authorities,  relative  to  the  effect  of  war, 
upon  treaties,  and. treaty  stipulations,  I  liave  to  acknowledge  my  obligations 
to  a  learned  and  ingeaious  friend,  a  nitmber  of  the  Senate  of  the  United 
States. 


199 

^equently  discontinued,  are  both  utterly  destitute  of  founijatioo.   I 
have  been  the  more  anxiously  earnest  in  the  developement  of  this 
deinoo8trat:on,  because  the  error  of  Mr.  Russell,  both  as  to  the 
principle  and  its  consequence,  is  by  uo  means  confined  to  him.   In 
the  above  extracts  it  will  appear,  that  it  was  entertained  by  lord 
Auckland  himself,  until  called  upon  in  the  deliberations  upon  the 
peace  of  Amiens,  to  examine  thoroughly  the  doctrines  of  the  wri- 
ters on  the  laws  of  nations  relating  to  the  subject    Be  the  opinion 
of  Mr.  Russell  what  it  may,  the  portica  of  the  fisheries  to  which 
we  are  entitled,  even  within  the  British  territorial  jurisdiction,  is 
of  great  importance  to  this  Union.     To  New-England  it  is  among 
f  ?°D  valuable  of  earthly  possessions.    But  the  whole  fishery 
of  the  Bankd,  and  in  the  adjoining  seas,  is  at  stake,  upon  the  prin- 
ciples of  Mr.  Russell :  by  his  doctrine  we  now  hold  it  at  the  breath 
of  Great  Britain  ;  for,  by  a  declaration  of  war,  she  can  extinguish 
It  forever.    The  foundations  of  the  Union  itself  are  shaken  by 
this  opinion,    if  the  fisheries  of  New-England  are  held  at  the 
pleasure  of  Great  Britain,  one  of  the  main  purposes  of  the  Union 
to  the  people  of  New-England  is  taken  away.     So  long  as  Great 
Britain  holds  a  preponderating  power  upon  the  ocean,  whenever 
a  war  between  her  and  the  United  States  may  occur,  this  great 
interest  of  New-England  will  be  the  first  to  suffer,  and  in  the  most 
distressing  manner.  If,  besides  the  endurance  of  this  peculiar  hard- 
ship which  is  unavoidable.  New  England  is  to  be  told  that  her  liber- 
ties^ in  the  fisheries  themselves,  are  nothing  but  voluntary  donations 
oi  Lrreat  Britain,  which  she  has  a  right  to  resume,  on  the  first  firing 
of  a  gun,  the. vital  interests  of  New-England  are  not  on  the  same  foot- 
ing of  protection,  by  the  Union,  as  those  of  its  other  portions.  In  the 
relative  proportions  of  power  and  influence  between  the  different 
sections  of  the  country,  New-England  will  behold,  without  envy 
and  without  regret,  her  sisters  of  the  South  and  of  the  West,  rising 
to  preeminence  in  wealth,  population,  and  resources  over  herselt^ 
But  never  ag-ain  let  her  be  told,  and  least  of  all  by  one  of  her  own 
sons,  that  her  rights,  her  libr  ties,  or  her  possessions,  are  of  trifling 
or  insignificant  value  to  the  nation,  and  that  at  the  first  sound  of  a 
hostile  trumpet  they  will  be  abandoned  to  the  mercy  of  the  com- 
mon enemy  ;  or  surrendered  to  the  desperate  chance  of  a  repur- 
chase for  an  equivalent  wherever  it  may  be  found.     - 

In  my  remarks  on  Mr.  Russell's  letter,  1  expressed  the  hope, 
that  from  the  whole  history  of  this  transaction,  the  statesmen  of  this 
Union  would  take  warning  through  all  future  time,  in  their  conflicts 
with  foreign  powers  never  to  consider  any  of  the  liberties  of  this 
nation  as  abrogated  by  a  war,  or  capable  of  being  extinguished  by 
any  other  agency  than  our  own  cxpreas  renunciation.  Mr.  Russell 
takes  alarm  at  this  lest  the  implicit  renunciation  by  the  British  of 
the  right  to  navigate  the  Mississippi  should  not  be  sufficient— and 
he  says,  that  according  to  me,  that  right  is  unimpaired.  Mr.  Rus- 
sell's conclusion,  as  usual,  is  broader  than  his  premises.  He  might 
have  seen  that  the  object  of  my  remark  was  to  give  warning  to  the 


'^pt  ' 


m 


2oa 


«tote«meDo<  this  Union,  never  to  permit  or  abet  the  extinguwb- 
ment  of  ^y  of  our  liberties,  by  abandmment  or  surrender,  which 
woud  be  tacit  renunciation.    It  was  no  purpose  of  mioe  to  say  that 
our  liberties  could  not  be  so  extinguished.  On  the  contrary,  it  wai 
precisely  because  after  the  notification  of  the  British  plenipoten- 
tiaries on  the  9th  of  August,  1814,  our  fishing  liberties  would  have 
oeen  tacitly  renounced,  had  we  quietly  acquiesced  in  it,  that  I  deem- 
ed the  counter  notification  in  the  note  of  10th  November,  or  a  new 
stipulation  in  the  treaty  indispensable  to  save  those  liberties  from 
extinction.    It  was  precisely  because  Mr.  Russell  had  not  only 
Deen  prepared  to  surrender  them,  but  so  eager  to  prove  them  al- 
ready extinct,  that  I  thought  it  necessary  to  give  this  warning  to  the 
statesmen  of  my  country,  never  hereafter  to  follow  his  example. 
n  was  that  counter  notification,  which  saved  our  liberties  (and  our 
nghls  too)  in  the  fisheries.    Had  the  negotiation  with  Great  Bri- 
tain since  the  peace,  been  for  the  repurchase  of  liberties  acknoir- 
ledged  by  ourselves  to  be  extinct,  a  very  different  equivalent  must 
have  been  given  for  them.from  the  naked  right  oftiavigating  the  Mis- 
sissippi.     1  he  liberties  of  this  Union  will  never  becapable  of  beine 
extinguished  otherwise  than  by  express  renunciation,  so  long  as  the 
public  servants  to  whom  the  defence  and  protection  of  them  may 
be  committed  are  duly  determined  never  to  surrender  them  by  im, 
-  plication.    The  incapacity  of  surrender  is  not  in  the  liberty  itself 
but  in  the  soul  of  its  defenders.  ^         ' 

ih^^V""  *^*  right  of  the  British  to  the  navigation  of  the  Mississippi, 
ttiey  have  not  only  renounced  it,  by  their  concurrence  with  Mr 
Russell  that  the  treaty  of  1783  was  abrogated  by  the  war,  but  by 
stipulating  anew  boundary  line,  which  cuts  them  off  from  all  claim 

sat  on      R,"T  *^^  ^^^'  '^'J'?^"^  reserving  the  right  to  its  navi- 
gallon.     1  hey  have  abandoned  both  the  grounds  of  their  claim  to 

i.rnJ'""  •"?•  *^°"t'g"'*y  «fld  ti-esty  stipulation  ;  end  an  effectual 
guard  against  it,  more  effectual  indeed  than  any  renunciation,  is  that 
wane  they  have  no  territory  upon  its  borders,  they  never  can  have 
any  interest  in  reviving  it.  Their  very  advancing  any  claim  to  it 
Via^  '  ^^  ®°  inconsistency  with  their  doctrine4hat  the  treaty  of 
lltrK"^**  abrogated  by  the  war,  and  as  they  really  had  no  interest 
worth  a  straw  in  the  claim,  they  finally  abandoned  it,  to  redeem 
their  consistency.  They,  like  Mr.  Russell,  were  willing  enough  to 
adopt  one  principle  tor  operation  upon  their  own  claims  and  its  on- 
posite  principle,  to  affect  the  claims  of  their  adversary  ;  but  as  the 
obje-tof  their  claim  was  of  no  real  value,  they  finally  preferred  to 
abandon  their  claim,  rather  than  tbrmally  to  renounce  their  doc- 

But  there  is  one  object  which  to  Mr.  Russell,  ae  a  member  of 
Congress,  seems  to  present  matter  for  very  serious  consideration 
Jf  the  navigation  downwards  of  the  Mississippi,  by  British  subjects' 
with  merchandise  on  which  the  duties  have  been  paid,  and  subject 
to  all  the  custom-house  regulations,  is  a  power  of  such  tremendous' 
consequence  to  the  Union,  and  especially  to  the  unojinding  infaa^ 


H,f 


2ei 

«?S;1'^  ••""»""  beTrfb-teJ  Mt°"  How  halt""  "• 
« the  T  nion  been  palsied »   Whv  h»a  ^i.^         j-      *^  "^  ^'^^  arm 

nothing  proposed  to  be  stinulatpd  hv  thf^A-         !    *    ^°®*'«  ^m 
plenipotentCiea  on  the  fiTXc/mber IsL^^^^^^^  V' i^^^J'^^^^ 
jects  do  not  at  this  hour  possess   and  h!vl'  ^"'^  ^"*'**  ^ub- 
without  any  stipulation  wCeJwLihp  "f  7?.""*^^  *°  «W. 
the  State  ofLo!ii8ianaintrthTunLkL?-IS°°«[*''*'^"^ 
« taken  as  a  condition  upon  which  ?hl    ^flVl^^-^     ^^""^  '*  ^^^a"  be 
"  the  Union,  that  the  river  MTssssioD.  »L  ,!*^*'  ".'"'^orporated  in 
'•  waters  leading  intrtheLmr«nF;  ^?u  *^^5«^'gable  rivers  and 
"  conmon  A.^Jay,  and  Gulf  of  Mexico,  shall  be 

"  said  State  Is  to  ?he  inLbS  of  o^L'  T."  *°  **!f  i°'^«»'»t«°t«  of 
"of  the  United  States,  WitCanv  tax  dut  • ''  ""?  ^^  *""'*°"«« 
"  for.  imposed  by  the  said  State  "  Th^fw^K?^"'*'  °'  *""'  *•»««- 
way.  free  to  all  the  citizens  of  the  Unt^  Z^i"^  u  ^  ^°°"°°»  ^'gh- 
the  constitution  of  the  State  of  Lo?.S  ■^^''  ^^  ^^'^  «<^^'  and  V 
free  to  all  foreigners  at  peace  ^th?;!' n  '."f  T*  <>*'fa<^t  equally 
quently  toBritish  sub^cr  It^aL  be  DrS!h>'^/'''.''l^"^  '«»««- 
no  such  law  is  in  existence  t»e  prohibited  only  bylaw,  and 

source  to  the  Jcean.    It  d7not tin^  ^^n'^rt^.  the  river,  frim  its 
ascending  the  riv«r  frL  It  °**  "^  ^'^  '*^'"'*  *^em  to  a  right  of 

above  thlttTo^rot^^'L^S^^ifer^"^'^  ^^^'^  vessels  to^pLt 

wifi;:srtS;L:/t:ffrLt;?rf    ^*  ^^-  ^--"^ 

h.s  opinions  with  regard  ^It  UUe  tf  trr^rcorer^"^'  ^* 


20*2 


///.    Fishing  Liheriien — their  Value. 

Or  all  the  errors  in  Mr.  RustelFs  letter  of  11th  February,  1815, 
to  the  Secretary  of  State,  there  is  none  more  extraordinary  in  its 
character,  or  more  pernicious  in  its  tendency,  than  the  disparaging 
'  estimate  which  he  holds  forth  of  the  vaiue  of  the  liberties  in  the 
fisheries,  secured  by  the  treaty  of  1783,  and,  as  he  would  maintain, 
extinguished,  by  the  war  of  1812.  Not  satisfied  with  maintaining 
in  the  face  of  his  own  signatures  at  Ghent,  the  doctrine  that  all  right 
to  them  had  been  irredeemably  extinguished  by  the  war  ;'  not  con- 
tented with  the  devotion  of  all  his  learning  and  alt  his  ingenuity,  to 
take  from  his  country  the  last  and  only  support  of  right  upon  which 
this  great  interest  had,  by  himself  and  his  colleagues,  been  left  at 
the  conclusion  of  the  peace  to  depend  ;  not  ashamed  of  urging  the 
total  abandonment  of  a  claim,  at  that  very  time  in  litigation,  and  of 
which  he  was  himself  one  of  the  official  defenders,  he  has  exhausted 
his  powers,  active  and  meditative,  in  the  effort  to  depreciate  the 
value  of  those  possessions,  Which,  while  committed  to  bis  charge, 
he  was  so  surprisingly  Tntent  upon  relinquishing  forever. 

His  first  attempt  in  this  patriotic  career,  is  to  represent  this  in- 
terest as  a  merely  sectional  and  very  trifling  concern,  brought  in 
conflict  at  Ghent  with  another  but  a  much  greater  and  deeper  inte- 
rest of  a  different  section  of  the  Union. 

His  next  enfleavour  is  to  represent  it  as  an  exclusive  interest  of  a 
few  iudividualti,  the  mere  accommodation  of  a  few  fishermen,  annu- 
ally decreasing  in  number. 

And,  finally,  he  degrades  the  value  of  the  object  itself,  by  affirm* 
ing  that  the  fogs  in  the  high  northern  latitudes  prevented  the  effectual 
curing  of  the  fish,  and  that  this  liberty  was  totally  unnecessary  to  us 
for  subsistence  or  occupation,  and  afforded  in  no  way,  (iu  the  du- 
plicate he  says  in  no  AoKcsf  way,)  any  commercial  facility  or  political 
advantage. 

It  is  scarcely  possible  to  render  a  greater  disservice  to  the  peo- 
fV  of  ihis  Union,  than  in  their  controversies  with  foreign  powers, 
tu  array  the  interests  of  one  section  of  the  Union  against  those  of 
another.  On  no  occasion  can  this  be  so  dangerons  as  when  the 
power,  with  whom  the  negotiation  is  held,  has  the  purpose  of  wrest- 
ing from  us  the  enjoyment  of  such  a  possession,  the  immedifitR  in- 
terest of  which  is  confined  to  one  section  ;  and  I  confidently  aihrm, 
that  never  since  the  existence  of  the  United  States  -as  an  independ- 
ent nation,  has  there  been  an  emergency  upon  which  there  was  less 
reason  for  flinging  into  the  discussion  this  torch  of  dissension,  than 
at  the  negotiation  of  Ghent.  The  aim  of  the  enemy  w;i3  at  the  fish- 
eries. His  object  was  to  deprive  us  of  them.  The  American  ple- 
nipotentiaries were  instructed  not  to  surrender  them.  What  more 
could  the  enemy  defeire,  than  to  excite  within  the  American  mission 
itself,  a  sectional  interest  adverse  to  that  of  the  fisheries  ?  He  did 
so  ;  and  so  far  as  Mr.  Russell  dared  to  indulge  his  disposition,  moft 


*  203 

Jd  a  more  aealou-  and  acceptobie  service  T^^u""'  ^"""^  P«'^<'«'m. 
doctnne.  of  hi.  letter  of  llTFebruaT'lBlS  ^'^^''''''iH  the 
at  luue,  It  was  their  aivument  that  h«?.'J  J  *  /'  *<*  ^he  object 
•«cited,  it  w««  their  interest  hi  w!!       ^''*''     -*'  *^  **>«  spirit  he 
would  have  been  the  account  to^bKl;"*-    ^^ "«»*  inrfeJS 
heir  nght  of  navigating  the  fiiljpi?/,^^^^^^^     have  turned 
hey  disclaimed  it,  they  could  haTobtl'i^ir*'-^  "^"^''t '^hile 
bat  of  the.e  United  StJtes  to  their  fishtTlihiif-  "'  '«""n<^«tion. 
immense  d^proportion  of  what  'bey  w3  i***"*'"''    *««*•  the 
change,  they  would  have  plan  ed  in  thoh    ^''r  «"'"*«*  »»y  the  «»- 
of  bitterness  which  neve?  S  Ll    i*'*'''^  ''^  *''«  ^"ion.  a  roi 
Its  blood      Ffndthe  fiSs  bee^su^^^^^^^^^^^  «P  »>"*  i?S^ 

of  New.England  came  to  inqulr"  TheZ  '^Z^^''  ^^e  people 
them,  and  how  they  had  been  &  ZhJ  ^f f^^'^^i'  liberties  in 
been  to  be  told~thev  were  ll!  I\  ^  "T^^'d  their  feelings  have 
bidding  British  suK  f^*''itl  Z''  ""l^^ »«'"  ^^e  righf  of  for! 
boats?  With  what  Can'ru^a'n'c'e^rufd  tt  I'^^V^P'  ^^-^ 
We  have  lost  nothing,  upon  the  whni?    v  *^  *'.*''^  ^'^^''d  i*  said, 

yo«rfisheries--buti;haCacquired   be  rl2  'f'^^  ^«^« '««* 
Enghshmen  from  travelling  a  hiEv  i„^^'«'^  ""^  '"terdicting  all 

It  was  notin  the  power  of  man  7^^^^      ^''^  Western  Country  — 
t.  detach  the  affeVns  ofT    iL'ToT^Ti'"''!  betterX 

»r^K:rb;s^^i^^^^         . 

pose  that  the  article  WnoTrfthantE  '  ""  ^'^^^  ^°  -^ 
ed  to  mean ,  and  then  he  infers  tZftZoMh  ^'^f*''*''^  P'^-P^^t* 
to  mean  the  same  thing  as  tLtSlZifpT  ''^^n  ""derstood 
and  as  the  free  access  both  of  ill  ""'^  ""^  *^«  '''eaty  of  1794  . 
dians  within  our  tSrt^,  whi^h  [hThTd  ""  ''  *^«*'«  ^'^^  ^^e  ll' 
caused  inconveniences  to  usrwhich  h«5  h  ^"'"  '^  "'«  »'''*'«'>.  had 
structioiis  of  I5th  April    laiT  K^  ''.''^^^««?  mentioned  in  the  in- 

rJU  ''''  ^^'^^^  ^om Ve'contin^ait^^^^^^  ^"  ^  «'-«  -^ 
he  Mississippi.  No  such  inference  S/h"'J''«'^^  *°  "«^'g«te 
the  article.  The  article  was  precTselv  whl  l^  ^'*"  *''''"^°  f^°«» 
no  more;  a.id  if,  under  colour  ofT^RvV*  P'"P'^''*^d  to  be,  and 
tempted  to  g.ye  it  a  greater  extension  .  '^  ^^^^^""^^  ^"'d  ever  at- 
on  .rely  in  the  power  of  the  rm:;;;;;''':^''^  ''"'"^^  ^^^«  »>««« 
.  It  IS  the  first  common-ulacrnf??  ^?^"'^°'^«"trolthem 
«)«,  to  mis-state  the  ouSn  ?n  Hi.     '-'^   ^'^'^  sophistical  reason- 

«»akingthis.withoutSnorLce^^^^^^^^       ""^^'''  «"«««"'  «^"r 
jnterest  against  another,  chan.rthelf.'tnri-'r  "^""^  ^^^^'"""J 


901 


f- 


ing  the  Eastern  interest,  which  he  has  brought  in  conflict  wtt^  mch 
other. 

I  have  shown  that  the  proposal  acta  ally  made  to  the  British  pie* 
nipotentiaries,  was,  by  the  admission  of  Mr.  Ruasell  himself,  sd 
worthless,  that  it  was  nothing  that  they  could  accept ;  as  in  fact  it 
was  not  accepted  by  them.  Let  us  now  see  what  was  the  value  of 
this  fishery ;  this  '*  doubtful  accommodation  of  a  few  fishermen, 
annually  decreasing  in  number." 

From  the  tables  in  Dr.  Seybert's  Statistical  Annals,  it  will  be 
seenllflit  in  the  year  1807,  there  were  upwards  of  seventy  thou- 
sand tons  of  shipping  employed  in  the  cod  fishery  alone  ;  and  thut 
ii.  that  and  the  four  preceding  years,  the  exports  from  the  United 
States  of  the  proceeds  of  the  fisheries,  averaged  three  millions  of 
dollars  a  year.  There  was  indeed  a  great  diminution  during  the 
years  subsequent  to  1807,  till  the  close  of  the  war — certainly  not 
voluntary,  but  occasioaed  by  the  state  of  our  maritime  relations' 
with  Europe,  by  tfur  own  restrictive  system>  and  finally  by  the 
war.  But  no  sooner  was  that  terminated,  than  the  fisheries  reviv- 
ed, and  in  the  year  1816,  the  year  after  Mr.  Russell's  letter  was 
written,  there  were  again  upwards  of  sixty-eight  thousand  tons, 
employed  in  the  cod  fishery  alone.  From  Dr.  Seybert's  state- 
ments, it  appears  further,  that  in  this  occupation  the  average  of  sea- 
men employed  is  of  about  one  man  to  every  seven  tons  of  shipping, 
so  that  these  vessels  were  navigated  by  ten  thousand,  of  the  har- 
diest, most  skilful,  soberest,  and  best  mariners  in  th^  world. — 
*'  Every  person  (says  Dr.  Seybert,)  on  board  our  fishing  vessels, 
**  has  an  interest  in  common  with  his  associates  ;  their  reward  de- 
'*  pends  upon  their  industry  and  enterprise.  Much  caution  is  ob- 
"  served  in  tiie  selection  of  the  crews  of  our  fishing  vessels ;  it  often 
*'  happens  that  every  individual  is  connected  by  blood,  and  the 
"  strongest  ties  of  friendship.  Our  fishermen  are  remarkable  for 
*<  their  sobriety  and  good  conduct,  and  they  rank  with  the  most 
'*  skilful  navigators." 

Of  these  ten  thousand  men,  and  of  their  wives  and  children,  the 
cod  fisheries,  if  I  may  be  allowed  the  expression,  were  the  daily 
bread — their  property — their  subsistence.  To  how  many  thou- 
sands more  were  the  labours  and  the  dangers  of  their  lives  subser- 
vient ?  Their  game  was  not  only  food  and  raiment  to  themselves, 
but  to  millions  of  other  human  beings. 

There  is  something  in  the  very  occupation  of  fishernen,  not 
only  beneficent  in  itself  but  noble  and  exalted  in  the  qualities  of 
which  it  requires  the  habitual  exercise.  In  common  with  the  cul-' 
tivators  of  the  soil,  th^r  labours  contribute  to  the  subsistence  of 
mankind,  and  they  have  the  merit  of  continual  exposure  to  danger, 
superadded  to  that  of  unceasing  toil.  Industry,  frugality,  patience, 
perseverance,  fortitude,  intrepidity,  souls  inured  to  perpetual  con- 
flict with  the  elements,  and  bodies  steeled  with  unremitting  action, 
ever  grappling  with  danger,  and  familiar  -with  death  :  these  are 
the  properties  to  which  the  fisherman  of  the  ocean  is  formed  by 


I 


'-4     " 


•W 


/.4t'«v 


205 


W«  first,  and  found  hi,  m™?^? °;i,f  .     T°"'  ">'  ">inkind,  tmgbl 

of  nations  wars,  the  examnlA.  r^full^  .   deadliest  rancours 

of  exempting.  b/thecoStnsenfS^^  ^'''^  ^''^^^^' 

mie,,  fishermen  from  thToper.tion  of  ll  f  .v°''  exasperated  ene- 
with  Prussia,  they  are  expSf"",^^^  '»  <>"«•  treaties 

••Wio,c  occ,i««  J«,  areiTor  .?;        ^^^  among  the  classes  of  meji 

the  parties  Xevsh.n  h»    n'     ^*  "^^^^  event  of  war  betweei 

with?ut'Se?t:fiot"No:  tel  de^^^^^^^^^^  t^^  ^'"'"^y"-" 
conspicuous  than  their  usefu  ness  0  their  k?nd  wL'TK^  '"" 
man^of  the  ocean,  far  from  his  native  land  frnrnK^V''-.  **"''^- 
his  fire-side,  pursues  at  the  consfan  haS of  S  V  ^"°''^'  "°^ 
the  bosom  of  the  deep,  the  desire  of  hUhf  1  ■  I  ^'l  S^""®  "P°n 
his  situation  ever  intently  turned  toward-  K-k''  ^^  ^^-^  °"^"«  < 
and  his  country.    To  be  lost  to  th«r-^^^^  '"""*'     '  *'''"^''^''' 

fears  ;  to  return  with  the  fn,  11  n A-  .*^ J^'  *''^"'  ^^^"««t  edge  to  his 
all  his  hopes  By  no  men  u^^^^^^^^^  *°  '^^"^ '« ^he  object  of 

tions  bee'n  mor^  c^s^tF;:::^^^^^^^^^^^ 
New.England.    From  the  Dror3  If  1  ■        ^  .  *  fishermen  of 

our  national  arm  did  it  not  impart  firmness  and  ener^J"  w7  °^ 
told  they  were  ^'ammally  decreasing  in  numLr  •"  vFt  *k  u*"! 
lost  their  occupation  by  the  war     »f  hIk  Y®*  '  ^^^^  ^^^^^ 

ermen  of  New-England.  in  the  tu^  of  w^^fnl  i  a^^  ^^"^  ^^^  ^'^' 
peal  to  the  heroes%t  «  /  our  nav^al  wai-asi'th?'"^'"'!'  ^P* 
Algiers  and  Tripoli-ask  the  rXme^s  o?!.^  the  vanquishers  of 
chains  of  servitude,  and  of  your  „S  frJ^^  "ih '^T "' r^^^ 
annual  tribute  to  the  barbarifnrof  ASa~c"ll  o^hrf'''" '^ 
of  our  last  struggles  with   Britain-Lnsk  H.^        on  the  champions 

Stewart,Porter,?ndMaclnXr;:i;^^^^^^^^^^ 

hshermen  were  the  companions  of  Jheir  victories  arfd  sea  ?dTh1: 

proudest  of  our  triumphs  with  their  blood  •  and  /aIh  J!     r    ^  ' 

t»l.e„  l„  „„r  &ho™e„  before  tL  prcenf  ".nrlrtu:  *!  ' 

2o 


trpen  sea,  or  upon  oar  own  coasts,  and  cured  on  our  own  shoiea." 
1  his  assertion  is,  like  the  rest,  erroneous. 

The  shore  fishery  is  carried  on  in  vessels  of  leas  than  twenty  ton* 
burthen,  the  proportion  of  which,  as  appears  by  Seybert's  Statisti- 
cal  Annals,  is  about  one  seventh  of  the  whole.  With  regard  to 
the  comparative  value  of  the  Bank,  and  Labrador  fisheries,  I  sub- 
join hereto,  inrormation  collected  from  several  persons,  acquainted 
with  them,  as  their  statements  themselves  will  show  in  their  mi- 
nutest details. 

♦i.^d""*u'''^  P«"*><^  of  t'^e  negotiation,  I  had  been  satisfied,  that 
.he  British  plenipotentiaries  would  not  accept  the  renewal  of  the 
8th  article  of  the  treaty  of  1783,  (the  Mississippi  navigation)  as  an 
equivalent  for  the  Renewal  of  the  third,  (the  fisheries.)     In  the 
correspondence  which  followed  their  notification  at  the  first  con- 
ference, that  their  government  did  not  intend  to  grant  the  former 
fishing  liberties  without  an  equivalent,  they  had  even  dropped 
their  claim  for  an  article  renewing  their  right  of  navigating  the 
Mississippi,  until  we  met  their  pretension  that  the  fisheries  had 
t»eeo  forfeited  by  the  war,  which  we  first  did  in  our  note  of  the  10th 
of  November,  1814.     The  principle  upon  which  I  had  always  re- 
lied,  was,  that  the  rights  and  liberties  recognised  in  the  3d  article 
of  the  treaty  of  1783,  had  not  been  abrogated  by  tbe  war,  and 
would  remain  in  full  force  after  the  peace,  unless  we  should  re- 
nounce  them  expressly  by  an  article  in  the  treaty,  or  tacitly  by 
acquiescing  in  the  principle  asserted  by  the  British  plenipotentia- 
ries.     1  here  was  a  period  during  the  negotiations,  when  it  was 
probable  they  might  be  suspended,  until  the  American  commis- 

IT^^u*"""      '*^*^^"'®  "^'^  instructions  from  their  government. 
Alter  the  peace  was  signed  I  was  aware  that  the  question  relating 
to  the  fisheries,  must  become  a  subject  of  discussion  with  the  Bri- 
tish  governrnent ;  and  I  had  been  previously  informed  by  the  Se- 
cretary of  State,  that  if  the  negotiation  should  result  in  the  con- 
clusion of  peace,  it  was  the  President's  intention  to  nominate  me 
lor  the  subsequent  mission  to  Great  Britain.     I  felt  it,  therefore, 
to  be  peculiarly  my  duty  to  seek  the  best  information  that  i  could 
obtain,  m  relation  both  to  the  rigiits  and  liberties  in  the  fisheries. 
as  recognised  in  the  treaty  of  1783,  and  to  their  value.     The  fol- 
lowing are  extracts  of  two  letters  written  by  me  from  Ghent,  to  one 
ot  the  negotiators  of  the  treaty  of  1783.  By  attending  to  the  dates 
It  will  be  seen,  that  the  first  of  them  was  written  three  days  before 
the  first,  proposal  by  Mr.  Gallatin,  of  the  article  relatinl^  to  the 
Mississippi  and  the  fisheries,  and  the  second,  two  days  after  the 
signature  of  the  peace. 


Ghent,  27th  October,  1814. 

« My  dear  sir  :  The  situation  in  which  I  am  placed,  often  brings 

to  my  mind  that  in  which  you  were  situated  in  the  yearl7H2,  and 

I  will  not  describe  the  feelings  with  which  the  compari.c,„,  or  I 

might  rather  say,  the  contrast  affects  me.     1  am  called  to  support 


207 

iUj  ""« '°*««*»;i' and  in  many  respects  the  same  ideutical  points 
and  quwtionji.     The  causes  in  which  the  present  war  origiMted 
and  tor  which  it  was  on  our  part  waged,  will  scarcely  form  the  mont 
insignihcant  it^m  in  the  negotiation  for  peace.     It  is  not  imDrnt.. 
mentand  unalienable  allegiance,  blockades  and  orderrincound 
colon.Hl  trane  and  maritime  rights,  or  belligerent  and  neutral  collliM 
91008  01  any  kind  that  form  the  subjects  of  our  discussion    It  is  the 
boundary,  the  fisheries,  and  the  Indian  savages. 

••  It  IS  nothing  extraordinary  but  a  strong  evidence  of  the  real 
character  of  the  contest  in  which  we  are  engaged,  that  the  noit 
offensive  and  inadmissible  of  the    British  demands  are   pointed 
against  the  State  of  Massachusetts.    It  is  a  part  of  her  territory 
of  which  they  require  the  cession,  and  it  is  the  fisheries  of  her 
citizens  which  they  declare  themselves  determined  no  lonier  to 
allow.      1 18  not  the  general  right  to  the  fisheries  which  they  con- 
tes  ,  but  the  liberty  of  fashing  and  of  drying  fish  within  their  juris- 
diction,  stipulated  m  the  3d  article  of  (he  pence  of  1783     For  mv 
own  part,  I  consider  the  whole  article  as  containing  parts  of  the 
general  acknowledgment  of  our  Independence,  and  therefore    As 
needing  no  renewal  by  any  future  treaty.     But  as  the  subiect  will 
certainly  come  under  the  consideration  of  the  government  of  the 
United  States,  they  will  have  time  to  give  instructions  founded  upon 
their  view  of  it,  before  any  peace  can  be  concluded.     There  is  no 
doubt,  whenever  the  negotiation  is  resumed,  that  this  point  will  be- 
come  again  a  subject  for  discussion.  If  there  is  among  your  papers 
relating  to  the  negotiations  of  peace  in  1782  and  1783,  any  infer- 
ination  tending  to  elucidate  the  third  article  of  those  treaties  which 
you  can  communicate  to  me,  it  may  perhaps  serve  a  valuable  pur- 
pose to  the  public.     And  as  this  letter  contains  more  than  i  should 
at  this  moment  think  myself  warranted  to  communicate  even  to 
you,  but  for  the  particular  motive  which  occasions  it,  I  must  re- 
quest of  you  to  consider  it  as  entirely  confidential. 

«  Ghent,  26th  December,  1814. 
"  My  dear  sir  :  I  transmited  by  Mr.  Hughes  a  duplicate  of  my  last 
letter  to  you,  dated  27th  October,  which  I  still  entreat  you  to  an- 
swer,  if  lam  destined  to  a  longer  continuance  in  Europe,  and  upon 
which  I  ask  all  the  advice  and  information  which  it  may  be  in  your 
power  to  bestow.    It  relates  principally  to  the  subject  of  the  great- 
est  difficulty  we  have  had  in  the  negotiation,  and  that,  which  of  all 
others,  IS  left  in  the  state  the  most  unsatisfactory  to  us  and  particn- 
larly  to  me.     It  has  been  now  for  a  full  month  ascertained,  that 
unless  new  pretensions  on  the  part  of  Great  Britain  were  advanced 
a  treaty  of  peace  would  be  signed  ;  but  it  was  not  until  last  Thurs- 
day that  I  ceased  to  doubt  whether  it  would  receive  my  sigillure. 
The  British  plenipotentiaries  had  declared  to  us  at  the  outset  of 
the  negotiation,  that  it  was  not  the  intention  of  the  British  govern- 
ment to  grant  to  the  people  of  the  United  States  in  future  the  li- 
berties of  fishing,  and  drying,  and  curing  fish  within  the  exclusive 


4^ 


2oa 

Biiti&li  jurisdiction  ymhout  an  eauivahnt     'ri.«.,„  • 

lemember.  ia  the  U.i.d  article  orthe  treaty  if  ITB^'-'lir"  ^'c 

kfSn°"^  ''^'''^  "•«  general  fisS  t   he  Lntr^^^^^^^^ 
knOHrledKed  as  our  right,  but  these  fishing  privifeKes  wUhTn  the 
British  jurisdiction,  are  termed  Siherties      Thln^fil 
«nent.con,ider  the  latter  «,  frl  kine   Jojfeited  ipt''(l1',oTvTi;:: 

rSt  t'o  nav?«te  tie  i'*''"^""''P''  *'''?^'  '«'^'  ^«^  ''o'-feited  thdr 
17M  VhJl     "^^   ^  Mississippi,  recognised  in  the  same  treaty  of 

brought  rnrruT-r^rUdt^rhortraS 

ing  on  the  same  Footing  :  both  as  he'continZ t  . f  Y^  k  '*""t 
risdiction  had  been  that  of  our  owniovSn     hv  »t^  special  ju- 

term.  them.el,e,  and  »otCt  "hVartic  e  o^irfh  7"",°«™  **' 

tha.  one,  more  than  L  oLer^hmWbe  liabte^r^^^^^^ 
.ub,eqo«.t  war.    On  the  m.ta,e7delibeS„    .tfnto S  «  ■''^  " 
gament  to  he  sound,  and  it  is  to  mv  m^  .Lf     (  .   ""'  "''■ 

ourcJaim  to  the  fisheries  witW„  B?i,T,h''i'ri!r,-^  ""'  ^^  "*'"'> 
lained.  Bot  after  the  declarS  made  bv  Jhe  r1'°  h  °™  •"=  "'''»- 
«was  not  to  be  enpecled  Zt  IhTv  „„„u  k  "'"'' «°"'"'"""'"'' 
opinion  without  Stscul,!,  SLicrii  LbM^'f''  '°  *'l 
the  result  of  this  must  ha,e  heei  "e Jy  drXfol  J^^°  '■°  j"'' '"?, 
.noes  inclined,  and  at  this  time  most  ?ec£w'  S'eTal'r'  ",'„' 

the  gilund  upon  which  ourJ::e'rnmtt*de  '^e  J  ^"r'rpS:;; 

r„xrheVier'-?h^^^ir/orarirlL?p^:;¥""^^^«^^^^ 

^hcn  the,  c«ne  to  -/a-UpuStS^feli  ^^8^^^^^^^^^ 


209 

anart^!6reco«^j,„g;,f/J«^-^^^^  W*.  offered' 

thMioffer  met.  l.o»vever.  with  verv  Jl  *'''"  •"»  *^*"  "ide.  ; 

;je  navigation  of  the  Ms^Lip     EmL?^.;"«  '*'  ""^^  '^''°  though; 
the  contested  part  of  thefi^he/L       S'^T'^"^'^ '"°*"«  valuable  thnn 
nient  think  ;  for  thev  ,n«to«.l  «f        ^*^^  '°  ^''^  ^''^  BriiiBh  Jvern 
stipulating  t'o  negotfa^t^Tereaftet  fr^''"«  '^  ''«'«^«'*  "•  ««  artidj 
Great  Britain  for  the  riX  nf  n         .  ""  equivalent  to  be  given  hi 
r^nited  State,  f^r  the  1  fertifs^ff  Sh'^^-  ^''TPP''  ««*  by  thl 
f'c  .on.     This  was  merely  to  obtalS  fl^"""  T^^""  ^^'t"**  J»S! 
hat  both  the  right,  were  aCognte   'hv^r„"'  '^'l^T^  •«»«'"-^» 
I   was  determined  not  to  subscribi^  th^'V  .^^  t'»«t  admission 
last  Thursday  by  the  British  niT      *      •  ®  "***"='«  ^«»  withdraw* 
pro4,os„,  to  siy  nothing  'n  he'  rtJC^^       ^^'^^  accepted  ou? 
Hrt^cle  by  which  they  had  agreeTtLfn"^*'^^^^^^         to  omit  the 
^ake  of  the  Woods  should  be  the  49  h       ^°""''«ry  ^^st  from  the 

iL^7K"^'^"  ««'"«  time  referred  Itn  to  fh'"""'  °    ""'•*''  '«titude! 
that  the  fisheries  within  British  iS-^-^^""  ^"^"""^  declaration 
granted  without  an  eqVvSent     It  if  pv^"  7 "J*^  °^^ 
subject  of  a  future  neg^otiatTon     The  onk  th"*  '^''  I  """"^  »>«  'he 
now,  was  to  preserve  our  who  e  clai'm  „„^ii.^'"^  ^T'^^^  *«  he  done 
consented  to  sign  the  treaty  -!_     """"P^'^ed,  and  with  that  I 

"  As  a  citizen  of  Massachusetts  I  Mt  :♦  #    u 
4uty  not  to  abandon  any  one  of  £«;  riSts  i?f  """Jr^^^Jiarly  my 
0  sign  the  treaty  had  any  one  of  thp£  k  '  ^"1'  '^°"'''  h«ve  re/bsed 
.mpossibJe  to  fo/ce  a  sti/ul^tL^  i  ';avot\^^^^^^^^^^^  ^"*  't^J 

a  temporary  possession  of  Moose  IshnJ  L  .  ^^heries  ;  and  for 
certamed  whether  it  belong  rhetJC'J^  """.'.'^  ">«"  »>e  ^! 
continumg  the  war.  — ^  "  "°*»  ^e  could  not  think  ol* 

^riri!;^^?^^^^^^^  f"?r  "*°"'  "■«  6".  or 

great «a.i,f»clion  i„  saline  Iha  onr  Lf       "l""  "'  »'«<•    Ihivi 

pondeDl  and  »  „„„  p„b|i,hed  mth  Mr  SJ''-  ">  "V  ™'C 
»as  wrillen  ig  conseqaence  of  ik,  J!'!:  .J""  ?  PeTOission.  It 
•bove  leuer  from  me, Id"  ^^  „j|  be  7.TrTT  '"  W™  «f  the 
"""  •«"  «-  of  «r.  Rosso.i.lelrer.'oVt  Mo'ltVl^L'-^.t.' 


210 


« iiif 


"  "  BMton,  Btii  Mtareh.  ISI^. 

bir  :  In  a  former  nqte,  returning  the  tetter  with  which  y<jM 
had  io  obligingly  fHVOured  me,  I  had  the  honour  to  offer  you  my 
congrittulation^  on  the  termination  of  the  war,  without  waiting  to 
know  what  were  the  grounds  of  the  treaty  which  concluded  it ; 
because,  from  the  tenor  of  the  previous  correspondence,  and^T 
personal  knowledge  of  nearly  all  the  commissionerff,  I  felt  a  reli- 
•oce  that  the  arrangement  would  not  be  a  dishonourable,  although 
?  acknowledge  my  rejoicing  was  mingled  with  fear  least  it  should 
be,  at  least  in  some  points,  h  disadvantageous,  one  ;  and  thit  expres- 
sion of  feeling  I  volunteered  with  the  more  readiness,  aa  th«  intelli- 
gence was  received  nt  a  moment  when  the  national  character  had 
been  splendidly  illuntrated  by  the  recent  achievement  ut  New- 
Orleans. 

"  But  I  greeted  the  occurrence  with  smiles,  principally  not  be- 
cause I  expected  it  would  bring  or  restore  to  us  ali  the  benefits  we 
fiossessed  under  former  treaties,  but  because  I  saw  no  chance,  but 
rem  this  source,  of  happier  proppects  for  the  future.  It  was  not, 
however,  the  storm  that  howled  along  the  lakes,  or  upon  the  sea- 
board, that  created  the  apprehension  of  an  instant  for  the  fate  of  the 
contest,  but  it  was  the  hidden  fire  that  was  rumbling  within  our  own 
bosoms,  and  which,  under  the  continuance  of  the  war,  would,  I  be- 
lieve, have  made  our  country  the  theatre  of  domestic  convulsions, 
as  well  as  of  foreign  warfare,  and  perhaps  from  its  effects  have  of- 
fered up  some  parts  of  it  aa  no  very  diflicult  prey  to  the  mercy  of 
the  enemy. 

**  On  this  head,  I  know,  sir,  you  had  better  hopes,  and  thought 
differently  from  me  ;  and  I  have  now  only  to  say,  I  am  glad  the  ex- 
periment hui*  never  come  to  issue. 

'^  As  the  price  of  the  purchase  of  an  escape  from  evils  portentous 
a?  these,  I  considered  it  as  probable  that  the  English  government 
might  claim  from  us  the  contested  eastern  islands,  and  interdict  all 
trade  between  us  and  her  colonial  possessions  ;  and  possibly  still 
further,  that  she  would  endeavour  to  extort  from  us  the  coast  fishe- 
ries around  her  own  shores  ;  for,  on  the  magnanimity  or  friendship 
of  Great  Britain,  or  of  any  other  nation,  in  matters  of  interest,  I 
confass  I  never  had  the  ability  to  lash  my  imagination  into  any  sort 
of  dependence  ;  but  I  did  also  cherish  the  belief  that  none  of  our 
esisential  or  important  rights  or  liberties  would  be  u.  i  vsisaljed  or  sur- 
rendered. Of  the  latter,  the  one  of  the  greatest  :;o!i  "re  nee  in 
reference  to  its  intrinsic  value,  and  as  derived  f .  •  c  .  s'cov.ry  aru 
possession,  and  confirmed  by  a  formal  treaty  stipulation,  is  unquds- 
tionably  that  to  which  you  have  referred — the  coast  fisheries  on  the 
shores  of  the  British  possessions  in  North  America. 

"  These  fisheries,  as  most  advantageously  secured  to  the  United 
States  by  the  treaty  of  1783,  and  made  at  the  time,  as  1  have  always 
vsa  Jerstood,  a  sine  qua  non  of  that  treaty,  offer  an  invaluable  fund 
of  iiv«>?,Uh  and  power  to  our  country  ;  one  which  has  never  been 
diily  attended  to,  nor  justly  appreciated,  but  which,  if  continued 


an 

reached,  io  «  *ery  -muH  deirei  1  11^' """'  *'«*'  ""doubilny 
wn«  capable  of  attaining  X  unltuled  T?"  ?''  i'^Portance  ft 
^orld  for  the  p«.t  tweSty  yrr.  "nd  tJ«  "'"'  '' .  ^^«  commercial 
mercantile  enterprise  whicl^^;  ;«TtJtl^%T,r  """''"«  "''>«'»  of 
•"  pomt  cf  immediate  con,iden  ion  « Id  «.  «  ?*"  '''"'''**'•  '««'»•«». 
"heriea  into  the  back  iriound     h T  r  i  ""«""on,  to  throw  theic 

•ystem  of  embargoes  «Sd".t;irt?n  "'  "."^''  ""'  «»»«cked  by  the 
c W|,„  ,f  war.'they  were  S^^^^  «'°PP-1  by  a  da! 

reaching  an  importance  which  thof/.h  ^"^0^'  P'OKres.ing,  and 
country  and  ita«tate.men;  lad  become  Cn""^  ""''"°*^''  *«  "ur 
vernmenta  and  more  wealthy  merch  it' ./  "''"*'"'"«  *°  "'«  go- 
beginning  to  attract  the  attention  •     /''^  P''°*''nce8.  and  wnt 

Graat  Britain  toward,  them        °"  ""^  J^'*'""»>  ^^  »«•«  c;binet  J 

ofChalLta'nVtt'S'^^^^^^^ 

and  the  CoaJt  of  LabrX  appea';":!"^^'  ^  «'^«'^-  «'  ««l7 
God  of  Nature  as  the  great  ovTum  If  h^r  ^f"  designed  by  he 
Po».tory  of  this  species  of  food  nZl  ?  'Z^^^  i^exbnmml  re. 
r.can  but  of  the^^Kuropean  con^Lnt^  Mi"^  ^"PP'^  °'"''^«  Ame. 
catch  them  m  endless  abundance  iS'm,  *''®P'*oper  season,  to 
to  bait  the  hook  and  pull  the  S  in  i  "^  *'^°''* "  "*«'l«d  than 

necessary.     I„  clear  leather  ne^riT"'""""^  «^«"  »*>•«  i»  no" 

Al   this  was  gradually  making  hllr^L'^  ""'''  '''«'"• 
and  vigilance  of  the  NevvLuK-  1         ''"''"'"  ^^  the  enternrisc 
prior  to  the  year  ms    tLtTot'^^^^^     T'  '''  «  few  .eTsonH 

cod,  the  New-England  fishermen   I  am  ^nJ/^'^^'o^^^^^atching  the 


# 


212 

are  much  better  able  to  conceive  than  I  am  to  degcribe  ;  but  I  witiv 
pleasure  point  them  anew  for  your  consideration,  an  on  many  ac- 
counts presenting  one  of  the  most  interesting  public  objects  to  which 
it  can  be  directed. 

Lucrative,  however,  and  imposing  in  its  individual  and  national 
b<  mugs,  as  this  fishery  was  and  was  to  become,  it  was  IKtIe  known 
to  the  leading  men  of  our  country,  and  little  spoken  of  by  others, 
even  in  Massachusetts,  or  among  those  who  were  actually  engaged 
in  it,  and  a  knowledge  of  its  existence  ,in  any  thing  like  its  real 
extent,  or  future  capability,  was  perhaps  confined  to  not  more  than 
half  a  dozeo  heads,  (if  so  many,)  in  the  whole  of  the  Southern  and 
Western,  and  even  Middle  divisions  of  the  Union. 

'*  The  causes  e,f  its  value  and  importance  not  being  a  matter  of 
great  notoriety  here,  are  obvious  ;  it  was  an  employment  not  only 
in  the  fishery,  but  in  many  instances  undoubtedly  in  trade^  with 
the  British  inhabitants  ;  those  who  were  engaged  in  it  made  no  un- 
necessary promulgations  of  their  employment,  while  the  poorer  in- 
habitants of  the  provinces,  tasting  equally  its  sweets  and  advan- 
tages, were  alike  disposed  to  keep  silence  with  regard  to  it ;  but  not 
BO  situated  were  the  provincial  governments,  and  the  more  wealthy 
of  ♦he  merchants  of  the  sea-port  towns.    They  had  become  highly 
aF'     ^ed  at  the  expansion  ol  this  fishery  and  trade ;  jealous  of  its 
f  egress  and  clamorous  at  its  endurance;  they,  therefore,  of  late 
years,  have  repeatedly  memorialized  the  government  in  England, 
respecting  the  fisheries  carried  on  by  the  Americans,  while  the 
whole  body  of  Scottish  adventurers,  whose  trade  both  in  import» 
and  exports,  and  control  over  the  inhabitants  it  cartailed,  have 
turned  out  in  full  cry  jnd  joined  the  chorus  of  the  colonial  govern- 
ments in  a  crusade  against  the  encroachments  of  the  infidels,  the 
disbelievers  in  the  divine  authority  of  kings,  or  the  rights  of  the 
provinces,  and  have  pursued  their  objects  so  assiduously  tbat'at 
their  own  expense,  as  I  am  informed  from  a  respectable  source,  in 
the  year  1807  or  8,  they  stationed  a  watchman  in  some  favourable 
positior.  near  the  Straits  of  Canso,  to  count  the  number  of  American, 
vessels  which  passed  those  straits  on  this  empbyment ;  who  re- 
turned nine  hundred  and  thirty-eight  as  the  number  actually  ascer- 
tained by  him  to  have  passed,  and  doubtless  many  others,  during 
the  night  or  in  stormy  or  thick  weather,  escaped  his  observation  ; 
and  some  of  these  addressers  have  distinctly  looked  forward  with 
gratification  to  a  state  of  war,  as  a  desirable  occurrence,  which 
would,  by  its  existence,  annul  existing  treaty  stipulations,  so  inju- 
rious, as  they  contend,  to  their  interests  and  those  of  the  nation. 
With  what  degree  of  correctness  this  expectation  has  been  enter- 
tain€id,  the  future  must  determine  ;  but  unfortunately  these  mur- 
murs and  complaints  reached  England,  and  were  industriously  cir- 
culated about  the  time  that  our  restrictive  measures  awakened  an 
unusual  and  critical  attention  to  the  commercial  connection  between  . 
the  two  countries,  and  probably  the  value  and  importance  of  this 
branch  of  it  is  now  at  least  as  fully  understood  and  appreciated  on 
the  eastern  as  on  the  western  side  of  the  Atlatilic. 


213 

en.,rt»taed  them.    F^m  a^^ar?rf„.!''.°K°      V""."""  "">  •"»" 
an    ««enerallv    I  „I^S   i"""?"  """"'""e '*«"■». 't  lia>  been, 

considerable  expense,  and  lake  with  them  from  the  UniLd  Sta^f 

l.Lf!   "'ft'"?  t^'-  '"''""  '^^  fi^h  bite  uell,  which  is  not  alwav; 
the  case,  and  haul  the.r  cod  in  a  depth  of  water  from  45  to  SiT 

hemb  t^e  hnlf ''"^'  '""'^  ""^'^  '"'^  °P«»  theTh!  aid  place 
in  „  nlnr  i!         '•  u-  '"  ""*^"''^^'  «°«^  ^consequently,  in  some  degree 

freir'l^ ''^''•'k'"^ '*?'"'  «"^  after  having  ol^^tained  a  So^ 
freight,  re  urn  with  .t  to  the  United  States,  to  he  cured  or  dr  e^'and 

arl  '.'t'^^'^f^'^"'  '^"^  ^^^«^^  ii"^  i«  «^one,  or  they  can  bo 
er  a^d'  p«;':f  i'l^^  ■"-!•  ^  '-«  deteriorated.  becoLs^on 
er,  ano  part  of  ,t  make,  an  inferior  quality  of  fish,  called  Jamaica 


214 

tish,  and  the  proportion  of  this  Jamaica  fish  is  much  greater  than  it 
would  have  been  had  the  fish  been  dried  and  cured  shortly  after 
having  been  taken,  as  is  the  case  with  the  Coast  and  Bayf  isbery  ; 
in  addition  to  which,  these  vessels  employed  in  ihe  Bank  Fishery 
are  unavoidably  obliged  to  prosecute  this  business  with  a  great 
comparative  expense,  as  to  the  wear  and  tear  of  their  vessels,  and 
loss  of  time,  and  with  an  increased  degree  of  hazard,  both  as  to 
safety  and  success. 

"  The  Coast  and  Labrador  Fisheries  are  prosecuted  in  vessels  of 
from  40  to  120  tons  burthen,  carrying  a  number  of  men,  according 
to  their  respective  sizes,  in  about  the  same  proportion  as  the  ves  • 
sels  on  the  Bank  Fishery.     They  commence  their  voyages  in  May, 
and  get  on  the  fishing  ground  about  the  1st  of  June,  before  which 
time  bait  cannot  be   obtained.     This  bait  is  furnished  by  a  small 
species  of  fish  called  capling,  which  strike  in  shore  at  that  time, 
r.nd  are  followed  by  immense  shoals  of  cod  fish,  which  feed. upon 
them.     Each  vessel  selects  its  own  fishing  ground,  along  the  coasts 
of  the  Bay  o(  Chaleurs,  the  Gulf  of  St.  Lawrence,  the  Straits  of 
Bellisle,  the  Coast  of  Labrador,  even  as  far  as  Cumberland  Island, 
and  the  entrance  of  Hudson's  Bay,  lliiis  improving  a  fishing  ground 
reaching  in  extent  from  the  45th  to  the  68th  degree  of  north  latitude. 
"  In  choosing  their  situation,  the  fishermen  generally  seek  some 
sheltered  and  safe  harbour,  or  cove,  where  they  anchor  id  about 
six  or  seven  fathoms  water,  unbend  their  sails,  stow  them  below,  and 
literally  making  themselves  at  home,  dismantle  and  convert  their  ves- 
sels into  habitations  at  least  as  durable  as  those  of  the  ancient  Scy- 
thians.   They  then  cast  a  net  over  the  stern  of  the  vessel,  m  which 
a  sufficient  number  of  capling  are  soon  caught  to  supply  them  with 
bait  from  day  to  day.     Each  vessel  is  furnished  with  four  or  five 
light  boats,  according  to  their  size  and  number  ot  mert,  each  boat 
requiring  two  men.     They  leave  the  vessel  early  in  the  morning, 
and  seek  the  best  or  sufficiently  good  spot  for  fishing,  which  is  fre- 
quently found  within  a  few  rods  of  their  vessels,  and  very  rarely 
more  than  one  or  two  miles  distant  from  them,  where  they  haul  thp 
fish  as  fast  as  they  can  pull  their  lines,  and  sometimes  it  is  said  thai 
the  fish  have  been  so  abundant,  as  to  be  gaft  or  scooped  into  the 
boajs,  without  even  a  hook  or  hne  ;  and  the  fishermen  also  say  that 
the  cod  fish  have  been  known  to  pursue  the  capling  in  such  quan- 
tities, and  with  such  voracity,  as  to  run  in  large  numbers  quite  out 
of  water  <m  to  the  shores.     The  boats  return  to  the  vessels  about 
nine  o'clock  in  the  morning,  at  breakfast,  put  their  fiph  on  board, 
salt  and  split  them  ;  and  after  having  fished  several  days,  by  which 
time  the  salt  has  been  sufliciently  struck  in  the  fish  first  caught,  they 
carry  them  on  shore  and  spread  and  dry  them  on  the  rocks  or  tem- 
porary flakes.     This  routine  is  followed  every  day,  with  the  addi- 
tion of  attending  to  such  as  have  been  spread,  and  carrying  on  board 
and  stowing  awhy  those  that  have  become  sufficiently  cured,  until 
the  vessel  is   filled   with  dried  fish,  fit  for  an  immediate  market, 
which  is  generally  the  case  by  the  middle  or  last  of  Augiist,  an*'. 


^^ 


213 

^Vilh  which  she  then  proceeds  immediately  to  Europe,  or  returns  ' 
w  the  United  States  ;  and  this  fish,  thus  caught  and  cured,  is  es'- 
teemed  the  best  that  is  brought  to  market,  and  for  several  years  pre- 
vious to  that  of  1808,  was  computed  to  furnish  three  fourth  parU  of 
all  the  dried  fish  exported  trom  the  United  States.     This  fishery 
was  also  about  that  time  taking  a  new  form,  which  would  have  had 
a  double  advantage,  both  in  point  of  profit  and  extension  ;  for  some 
ot  our  merchants  were  beginning  to  send  their  large  vessels  to  the 
Labrador  Coast,  and  its  vicinity,  to  receive  therejvom  small  fishing 
boats  they  employed  or  purchased  from,  cured  fish,  to  load  their 
vessels  with  immediately  for  Europe,  thus  saving  so  great  an  ex- 
pense m  gettmgthe  fish  to  market  abroad,  as  would  in  a  short  time 
have  given  ouF  merchants  a  command  of  the  European  markets 
and  would  have  also  afforded  an  encouragement  to  a  small  but  verv 
^     numerous  boat  fishery,  which,  from  receiving  the  pay  for  their  la^ 
hour  on  the  spot,  could  not  fail  to  have  been  greatly  excited  and  in- 
creased,  and  enabling  the  persons  concerned  in   the  exportation 
trom  the  coast,  to  receive  at  home  the  proceed,  of  their  adventures 
trom  abroad,  about  as  early  as  the  bank  fish  could  have  been  put 
into  a  state  fit  to  be  exported  from  the  United  States  :  in  addition  to 
which  we  were  prosecuting  a  very  productive  salmon  and  macka- 
rel  fishery,  in  the  same  vicinity,  as  most  of  the  pickled  fish  we  had 

s'horel-^  ^"""^  ^^^^^  ^"'''"  *"*  ^^^  ^^"^  ^^'^  ''""Sht  on  those 

"  J^j^P"*'  Fnhery,  then,  most  highly  important  and  invaluable 
as  I  think  it  must  be  admitted  to  be,  even  from  the  foregoing  hastv  and 
imperfect  sketch  of  it,  merits  every  possible  degree  of  attention  and 
effort  for  its  preservation  on  the  part  of  the  government  of  the 
United  States.     The  refusal  of  the   British  commissioners  to  re- 
new  or  recognise  the  stipulation  of  the  treaty  of  1783  respectinc 
It,  and  the  notification,  I  hope  not  formally  given,  that  it  would  not 
hereafter  be  permitted  without  an  equivalent,  are  alarming  indica- 
tions m  reference  to  the  future  peaceable  prosecution  of  this  fish- 
ery, and  of  the  dispositions  of  the  British  government  with  regard 

"  The  difference  of  expression  used  in  the  third  article  of  the 
treaty  of  peace  of  1783,  as  to  the  right  of  fishing  on  the  Banks  of 
T^cwfoundland,  and  the  liberty  of  fishing  on  tlie  coasts  of  the  Bri- 
tish  provinces  m  North  America,  however  it  might  have  originated 
affords  a  diversity  of  expression  which,  in  the  present  instance* 
will  be  seized,  and  b-  made  to  give  the  partizans  of  Great  Britain 
and  of  the  provinces  a  popular  colour  of  justice  in  support  of  their 
arguments,  when  they  contend,  as  I  think  they  probably  will  do 
that  in  so  important  a  con   .act  the  variance  of  language  could  not 
have  been  a  matter  of  a   ;ident ;  that  if  precision  in  the  use  of 
terms  m  their  most  literal  iense  is  any  where  to  be  expected  it  is 
certainly  to  be  looked  /or  in  an  instrument  which  is  to  form  the 
paramount  law  between  two  nations,  whose  clashing  interests  have 
brought  them  into  collision,  and  wiiich  is  generally  framed  bv  men 


216 

of  the  most  distiogoished  talents  of  each  party,  the  acuteness  of 
whose  conceptions  is  always  kept  in  full  play  by  the  contending 
.  pretensions  they  have  respectively  to  consult  and  sustain  ;  and  that 
therefore  a  distinction  was  nnade,  and  was  intended  to  be  made,  at 
the  time  of  the  negotiation  between  a  right  derived  from  the  <3rod 
of  nature,  and  to  be  exercised  on  the  common  field  of  his  bounty,  the 
great  high- way  of  nations;  and  the  liberty,  permission,  or  indulgence, 
as  they  will  term  it,  to  continue  the  exercise  of  an  employment  on 
the  coast  at  the  very  doors,  and  within  the  peculiar  and  especial 
jurisdiction,  of  another  nation  :  the  one  according  to  this  doctrine 
being  a  right  inherent  and  not  to  be  drawn  in  question,  the  other 
a  sufferance  open  to  modification  or  denial  altogether  subsequently 
to  a  war,  according  to  the  will  or  the  interests  of  the  party  origin-  . 
ally  acceding  to  it. 

•'  The  liberty,  for  the  expression  of  the  treaty  in  the  discussion 
between  the  two  nations  must  be  admitted,  whether  it  operate  ad- 
versely or  favourably  to  us,  rests  for  its  own  continuance  either  as 
we  assert  on  the  ground  of  right  as  an  anterior  possession  apd  a 
perpetual  franchise,  or  as  the  British  will  contend  on  the  existence 
of  the  treaty  of  1783.     The  first  ground  to  be  8U{)ported  on  the 
view  taken  of  it  in  your  own  letter  and  in  that  which  you  had  the 
goodness  to  communicate  to  me,  and  even  on  the  second,  admitting 
pro  forma  that  a  declaration  of  war  does  ipso  facto  abrogate  all 
previous  treaty  stipulations  brought  into  contest  by  it,  unless  tacitly 
or  expressly  renewed  by  a  new  treaty  to  be  an  acknowledged  prin- 
ciple of  international  law,  still  the  right  in  question  could,  I  be- 
lieve, rest  untouched  and  unaffected,  although  I  know  not  with 
what  degree  of  decision  or  determination  the  negation  of  a  future 
use  of  the  coast  fisheries  was  brought  forward  in  the  negotiations 
at  Ghent  by  the  British  commissioners^     But  while  on  the  one 
hand  the  coupling  the  offer  to  treat  for  a  renewal  of  the  liberty  of 
the  coast  fisheries  for  an  equivalent  with  a  proposition  to  treat  for 
a  renewal  of  the  right  of  the  free  navigation  of  the  Mississippi, 
also  for  an  equivalent,  unless,  as  has  been  suspected,  they  were 
made  with  the  insidious  purpose  of  obtaining  an 'admission  that  both 
had  already  ceased  to  exist,  shows  the  confidence  they  would  wish 
to  appear  to  entertain  in  the  soundness  of  their  position,  that  the 
war  had  extinguished  both  the  right  and  the  liberty ;  for  the  former, 
the  free  navigation  of  the  Mississippi,  if  force  of  language  and  repe- 
tition are  to  have  any  weight,  could  not  well  have  been  placed  on  a 
stronger  basis,  it  being  very  expressly  and  explicitly  contracted  for 
m  the  treaty  of  1783,  recognised  in  that  of  1794,  and  again  men- 
tioned m  a  provisional  article  in  1796,  still  on  the  other  hand,  the 
omission  in  the  new  treaty  to  state  that  the  treaty  of  1783  had  ex- 
pired or  been  annulled,  and  a  reference  having  been  made  to  it  in 
several  instances,  is  a  yet  stronger  evidence  that  they  did  consider 
that  treaty  as  remaining  in  existence  and  of  consequence,  entitled 
to  respect  and  observance  in  all  such  of  its  provisions  as  had  not 
been  specially  contravened  in  the  new  treaty. 


217 

of  Britil  N.Hh  A  *"'^'  *°  prosecute  the  fineries  on  the  coasts 
of  British  North  America,  With  the  exception  of  the  island  o£ 
i^rtt"::,  'hi'  "k^  ^^'J^^^ere  the  parties  h'ad  been  accustomed  to 
use  them,  but  where  Bntish  fishermen  not  only  did  but  miJit 
thereafter  (that  .s  subsequently  to  the  date  of  th^e  freatyT  p^Se 
cute  them,  and  th.s  right,  for  it  had  now  bccomra  S}  UbeX 
b^  7:  tZf"'  '^  Tr'  ?f  *y  "-^^  "^-"'"^d  and  a^knlledge? 

cou  d  fhl !  I  '  ""^'"i:  T^**"*^'  "'"''«  ««  t^  it«  duration,  !nd 
could  then  only  cease  or  the  limitation  take  effect  on  the  happening 
of  one  of  hree  events,  that  is,  the  surrender  of  the  party  Zsess^ 
ing  the  nght  and  the  annulment  of  the  treaty  wh.ch^coltted  i  , 
or  by  an  usurped  and  unjustifiable  exercise  if  power  on  the  one 
part  .n  dehance  of  the  rights  of  the  other,  and  insolation  of  those 
common  pnnc.ples  of  good  faith  which  can  alone  regulate  the  in- 
tercourse between  nations  ;  but  the  surrender  of  the  righ'  ha^  i^t 
been  made  by  the  United  States,  and  the  treaty  of  1783  ha?  not 

hL'2„Tnt''^^^''V'''^'l"^^^^*'•«^«^•  because  the  parties 
tjl  >  <>"b' not  agreed  to  abrogate  it,  but  have  expressly  refer- 
red to  It,  and  in  the  treaty  of  Ghent  made  a  provision  to  carry  the 
stipulations  a,  to  boundaries  of  the  treaty  of  1783,  more  fX  and 

Tittl^  '?'°  f''' ''  r"  i'  •'^'"g  anLcontroveTted  pSiJJ? 
of  the  law  ol  evidence,  that  the  whole  must  be  admitted  if  a  part 

Ihrr'onrrlv"  T  '"""^  '^<'IP'o^^^  a°d  mutual  agreement  existe  to 
the  contrary,  and  as  no  such  stipulation  does  exist  in  the  present 

i^^o  illTVl  '''"'  "•"  '  '^'-'^^ contend,  even  by  the  show- 
w.>h  ii^i!  u?  commissioners  themselves,  still  in  existence, 
with  all  the  rightsvand  liberties  incident  to  it,  with  the  full  and  fre# 
ose  to  the  inhabitants  of  the  United  States  ;f  the  fisherL,^^^^^^^^^ 
merly  recognised  and  secured  to  the  United  States  by  that  treaty, 
ihis  IS  the  construction,  whether  to  be  supported  on  this 
wiirl?nV'"^  °^''  ^^^'t  ^  ^'"P^  '^^  go^rnment  of  our  country 
TprL?  ^'"'^  'V'.  '  r^^'  "^""'^  ^'^^^y  i"^?onmt  to  the  easier  J 
ZtTnAi' '?? '!^'/c  ^^^  P'^'^"^  «"'^  future  naval  and  commercial 
power  of  the  United  States  ;  and  should  the  British  ministry  or  the 

colonia  authorities  attempt  to  interdict  this  fishery,  as  I  think  they 
now  will  to  the  inhabitants  of  the  United  Statesf  he  government 

t'o  Stafn"'  V'"r  "'•'' '"'''  '*^^.'^°^*  P'-'^^P^  «"^  «ff-<=tufl  measures 
to  obtain  and  enforce  a  renewal  or  recognition  of  this  right  as  it  has 
heretofore  existed.  It  is  a  gem  which  should  never  be  surrendered, 
nor  can  It  ever  be  abandoned  by  any  statesman,  alive  to  the  inter- 

nf  nr!^""!'^''^^*^^'"?*''^^ '"  ''"  consequences  with  afree  right 
of  navigating  the  Mississippi,  it  is  even  a  much  more  unequal  stfke 

"  '^y.  ^'ght  of  navigating  the  Mississippi,  since  the  acquisition 
Vnit^T^T^  ^^^  possession  of  both  sides  of  the  rivei!  by  the 
United  States,  and  when  the  difficulties  of  the  ascending  naviea- 
tion  9re  considered,  and  the  jealousy  and  inconvenience  which  the 


218 

VntTufh^Tv,?/'^"^?  must  experience  from  artempting  to  ava.l 
ail  on  ?h^\?  "*  '^?'"'  ^°>''"'  ""'^^P*  ««  •'^  '^^  higher  branches 
ti^de  Th:;  /''r"l'*  ™^^  **'''"^*^  ^^^  prosecution  of  the  fur 
trade.     1  hig  trade,  however,  although  it  employs  a  lawje  number 

fLrtlT'  "'^r  '^'!.*'^^"  ^"y  '""P^'^""*  *o  ^he  natioraadru't 
Ihl  .1  operation  of  unavoidable  causes,  gradually  lessen,  and  in 
the  course  of  a  fewr  yens  probably  recede  altogether  from  the 
p^at  r.vers.  She  has,  therefore,  notwithstanding  the  opinion  of 
.  01  tne  American  commissioners  and  her  own  probable  preten- 
sions ot  lairness  given  up  nothing  in  point  of  value  compared  with 
ine  hi^he.ics,  which,  upon  the  same  ground, she  is  itodoubtedlv  de- 
sirous of  fortifying  herself  in  withholding. 

«  In  compliance  with  the  intimation  you  had  given  me,  I  have 
commen  ed  on  this  subject  at  much  greater  length  even  than  I  had 
contemplated  at  the  outset,  perhaps,  too  minutely  when  I  recollect 
that  a  part  of  it  at  least  must  be  much  better  understood  at  Quincv 
than  by  myself,  but  the  account  of  the  recent  state  of  thesl  fish- 
eries and  the  mode  m  which  they  were  prosecuted,  1  thought  might 
not  be  unacceptable  to  you.     My  information  with  regard  to  them, 
has  in  general  been  derived  from  respectable  sources  upon  which 
1  can  rely,  never  having  had  any  direct  interest  or  concern  in 
the  hsheries  myself.    1  have  riot  attempted  to  apply  the  principles 
of  public  law  to  the  question  respecting  them,  because  the  few 
books  of  this  description  which  1  possess,  are  still  at  Wasl.injrton  ; 
and  since  the  rising  ot  the  council.  1  have  not  had  time  to  make  any 
research  elsewhere,  and  because  I  presume  this  part  of  the  busi- 
ness will  be  placed  under  the  hands  of  those  who  will  have  both 
the  means  and  the  ability  to  do  it  ample  justice.  ^ 

♦I  had  intended  also  in  reference  to  the  treaty  of  1814,  to  have 

made  some  few  remarks  upon  the  interdiction  it  may  occasion,  of  a 

trade  between  the  United  States  and  the  British  po/ts  in  India  and 

on  Its  operation  upon  the  contested  boundary  on  our  North  Eastern 

frontier,  so  far  as  regards  the  right  of  possession  to  the  Islands  of 

Dudley,  Moose,  and  Frederick,  in  the  Bay  of  Passamaq noddy.     1 

have  however,  already  so  unduly  trespassed  on  your  patience,  that 

1  will  only  not  omit  them  altogether.     Both  these  objects  attach 

tothem  some  importance,  but  compared  in  point  of  value  with  the 

possession  of  the  fisheries,  perhaps  in  a  ratio  not  much  greater 

han  the  bullion  m  the  mint  at  Philadelphia  would  be  to  the  ore  in 

the  mines  of  Peru. 

•  */  ^^*"  K^  persuaded  that  in  avowing  the  hope  that  all  these  ob- 
jects  may  be  disposed  of  in  such  a  manner  as  best  to  confirm  the 
rights  and  secure  the  interests  of  the  United  States,  I  shall  unite 
fully  m  sentiment  with  yourself. 

"  I  have  the  honour  to  remain,  sir,  with  great  consideration,  vour 
very  respectful  and  obedient  servant,  '  ^ 

"  JAMES  LLOYD.'^ 

t 


2I» 

ceJnt?  hlS^J'thf/'r- '  ^^y  respectable  merchant,  con- 

„  n  »  ,  .  Boston,  May  «Oth,  1815. 

«^  fn  „K*'' •  "■  •'  ^''e«e«^'y  to  your  request  to  me,  I  have  endeavour- 
•n  thl  °^^T.^^''^'^  •"formation  in  my  power  relative  to  our  fisheriS 
nP„     «ud  the  ne.ghbour.ng  States,  with  their  tonnage,  numb  "  S 
men  employed    quant.ty  of  fish  caught,  quantity  of  saU  used 
and  the  probable  prce  they  averaged  at  foreign  markete     It  I 
was  no.  acqua.„ted  with  this  busine^  before  our  rev"  uUonarv  war 
shall  endeavour  to  give  you  a  statement  from  the  year  l/oo  To' 
1810  ;  to  some  my  account  may  appear  large  or  much  exaeeerated 
but  I  have  conversed  with  several  gentleman  who  have  be?nTrf* 
y  concerned  .n  the  business,  and  two  of  them  took  much  pS 
to  asco.ta.n  the  number,  etc.  some  time  since  ;  and  I  find  tbeyTo 
ftr  beyond  me  ;  but  1  shall  endeavour  togiveyou  as  correct  a sTatl! 
ment  as  I  can  and  wish  it  rray  prove  satisfactory  to  you! 
lour  humble  servant."  ^ 

"My  calculat.on  ig.  that  there  were  employed  in  the  Bank  La 
brador.  and  Bay  fisheries,  the  years  aboveLntioned  1232  vessels" 

4  627  m!n  /k  ^7  '"u^  ^"^  P"^  '^"'"^  36,540  tons,  navigated  by 
4,627  men  and  boys,  (each  vessel  carrying  one  boy.Uhev  take  and 
cure,  annually.  610,700  quintals  offish  ;  they  averse  abVuTthre^ 
fares  a  year,  consume,  annually.  81.170  hhds.  salt,  thl  average  c^t 
of  these  vessels  is  about  $  2,000  each  ;  the  averse  price  ofthei 
fish  at  fore.gn  markets  is  $  6  per  quintal ;  these  vlssels  also  mike 

IZtS'iLtba'r^ri^^''''' '''''''  '^^°'''  -^-^co^z^,: 

exclusfvloFLlt      '''  ^^«-^q"'P'"««ts  cost  about  $900,  annually. 

4ft'fl.Tn  f  ^^^  v^sels  that  fish  at  the  Labrador  and  Bay,  I  put  down 
48,600  tons  navigated  by  5,832  men  and  boys  ;  they  take  and  cure 
annually.  648,000  quintals  of  fish  ;  they  ^  but  one  fare  a  year  * 

Itr  is  1050  do  l!..  ?k'  '''r^'*^^  their  equipments,  provisions, 
^bfp  »Vfhfh  I  ''  ^''"'^  descnptjons  of  vessels  are  not  so  valu- 
able as  the  bankers,  more  particularly  those  that  go  from  the  Dis- 

mt  of  Ma.ne,  Connecticut,  and  Rhode-Island,  as  they  are  mostly 
sloops  of  no  very  great  value  ;  most  of  these  vessels  cure  a  part 
of  their  fish  where  they  catch  them,  on  the  beach,  rocks,  etc.  and 

he  rest  after  they  return  home;  several    argoes  of  dr^  fish  are 
shipped  yearly  from  the  Labrador  direct  for  Europe.     The  usuat 
markets  for  those  fish  are  in  the  Mediterranean,  say  Alican?,  Leg 
horn  Naples  Marseilles,  etc.  as  those  markets  prefer  sma     fish 

are  ..ry  small.     1  he  average  price  of  these  fish  at  the  market 
^hey  an-  .b.p.scd  ^fn  $  ' ,  ,u,,,  vo.sols  also  mi»ke  from  their  fish 


220 


about  20,000  bbl*.  of  oil,  which  always  meets  a  ready  sale  arid  at 
handsome  prices,  say  from  ^  8  to  JJ 12  per  barrel,  the  most  of  it  is 
oousiimed  in  the  United  States. 

♦•  1232  vessels  employed  in  the  Bank,  Bay,  and  Labrador  fisheries, 
measuring  -  .  .  Tons,  86,140 

Number  of  men  they  are  navigated  by,      10,469 

Number  of  hhds.  salt  they  consume,  178,370  hhds. 

Quantity  of  fish  they  take  and  cure,        1,158,700  quintal*. 

Barrels  of  oil  they  make,  37,620  barrels. 

"  There  are  also  a  description  of  vessels  called  jiggers  or  smalt 
schooners  of  about  from  30  to  45  tons  that  fish  in  the  South  Chan- 
nel, on  the  Shoals  and  Cape  Sables,  their  number  300,  they  carry 
about  4  or  5  hands,  say  1200  men,  and  take  about  76,000  qtls.  of 
lish,  annually  ;  consume  12,000  hhds.  of  salt,  and  make  about  4,000 
barrels  of  oil ;  their  fish  is  generally  sold  for  the  West  Indies  and 
home  consumption. 

"  There  are  another  description  of  fishing  vessels  commonly  cal- 
led Chebacco  Boats  or  Pink  Sterns  ;  their  number  600  ;  they  are 
from  10  to  28  tons,  and  carry  two  men  and  one  boy  each,  say  1,800 
hands  ;  they  consume  16,000  hhds.  of  salt,  and  take  and  cure 
320,000  quintals  of  fish,  annually.  These  fish  also  are  wholly 
used  for  home  and  West  India  market,  except  the  very  first  they 
take  early  in  the  spring,  which  are  very  nice  indeed,  and  are  sent 
,to  the  Bilbito  market,  in  Spain,  where  they  always  bring  a  great 
price  ;  they  make  9,000  barrels  of  oil ;  these  vessels  measure  about 
10,800  tons. 

"  There  are  also  about  200  schooners  employed  in  the  mackerel 
fishery,  measuring  8,000  tons,  they  carry  l,e00  men  and  boys,  they 
take  60,000  barrels,  annually,  and  consume  6,000  hhds  salt. 

"  The  alewive,  shad,  salmon,  and  herring  fishery  is  also  immense, 
and  consumes  a  great  quantity  of  salt. 

•>  Whole  number  of  fishing  vessels  of  all  descriptions  2,332 
Measuring  -  -  Tons,  115,940 

Number  of  men  navigated  by,  1 5,069 

Salt  they  consume,        -  .  265,370  hhds. 

Quantity  of  fish  they  take  and  cure,       1,353,700  quintals. 
Number  of  barrels  of  oi!,         -  50,520  barrels. 

Number  of  barrels  of  mackerel,  60,000  barrels, 

"  There  are  many  gentlemen  assert,  and  roundly  too,  that  one 
year  there  were  at  the  Labrador  and  Bay,  over  1,700  sail  beside 
the  bankers  ;  but  I  feel  very  confident  they  are  miuh  mistaken,  it 
IS  impossible  it  can  be  correct." 

These  papers  will  suflSce  to  show  what  reliance  i'^  to  be  placed 
on  that  information  concerning  the  value  of  the  fishing  liberties,  as 
they  had  been  enjoyed  by  the  people  of  the  United  States  from 
the  peace  of  1783,  to  the  war  of  1812,  which  Mr.  Russell  in  his 
letter  from  Paris,  of  Hth  February,  1815,  says  is  the  best  iifor- 
mation  'le  can  obtain  ;  but  which,  i»  the  duplicate  of  1822,  be  di- 


221 

'  l'**/V°S  -^^  ^^^  information  which  A/  and  his  colleagues  at  Ghent 

thef  af.t'ri'  '"1  'i^'.  ''P^'t  ^  ^'^^  'nformaUoa^upon  ^^"^11 
they  as  i/ell  as  he  had  acted.     It  may  be  proper  to  refer  also  to 

o?X'r/h^R  7V''  "^'^  extent  of  the  fnteJe"  in  [he  Lh  rie^ 
01  nrhich  the  British  government  intended  at  the  negotiation  of 
Ghent  toobtain  from  the  United  State,  the  tacit  oJlmp^d  s  'rren 
der.^  2.   The  value  of  this  interest  as  estimated,  by  British  autho- 

The  instructions  from  the  Secretary  of  State  to  the  American 
SniTh""  ^'u^^^'^  co„.„anding  them  in  no  eveni  toTurTn" 
Jiuf  ^!- 'f''  ^"^  '^'"f  *•  surrender  should  be  insisted  on  to  brei 
off  the  negotiation,  were  dated  the  24th  of  June,  1814.  By  a  sinS 

rvLrortLeroi-'r*  f.r^"'^  ^'^^^  ^^-  recd^edTthJ 
evening  of  the  8lh  of  August,  the  very  day  upon  which  the  British 

plenipotentianes  had  notified  to  us  thi  intentions  of  the  r  gove  n 

Which  °^  If  T    ?t  'J'^K^'^  •"*''«  ^'"•''^  •American  J^l^ries, 
Which,  as  they  stated,  had  been  granted  by  the  treatv  of  1 783 

1 1th  o?  June  \tZf  ''•''^'-  ^^«'^^^^'  P-  23runde/daIe'of  the 
inoi  aI  ^^1'. t'»«''e  IS  a  memorial  of  the  merchants  and  prin- 
apM  resident  inhabitants  interested  i„  the  trade  and  fisheries  of 
Newfoundland,  to  admiraK  Keats,  who  had  been  somrtLe  governor 
/^folu"^^'  ^"u^''''  then  about  returning  to  England,  it wm 
fhltnl'*  .^«^«'»»'r'  ^^I^  ^""^  •"  the  Register  waf  preceded  by 
!!f  the  dme?  '""""'''  ''^""^  '''''  ''  '"^''«'«  '^'  poHar leelin^ 

From  Niles's  Register  of  11th  June,  I814.-The  Fisheries. 
"  Ihe  following  memorial  has  excited  ,  -nsiderable  interest  nar- 
^ularly  in  the  eastern  States,  so  far  ae  ive  have  heard  of  ts  Z- 
mutation,  I  cannot  doubt,  from  the  high  ground  assumed  by  G^eai 
Brttam  since  her  victories  on  the  continent,  but  that  she  wUI  at 
empt  to  exclude  us  from  the  fisheries  as  the  grand  nursery  of  her 
seamen,  etc.  This  opinion  is  strengtl^ned  by  hosts  of  "  Ltract^ 
of  Letters  from  England-  Let  tho^e  who  have  calcu  ated  on  the 
"magnammity''  of  Grea^fiWram  look  to  it;  those  who  have  ea:- 

Cpo^otd"^ '' '"  ^"^'^^ "  "^^ '''''''  '^'  ^'^y  «h^»  -t  '^ 

"  The  Boston  Centinel  says  this  memorial  is  alarmingly  interest- 

n^/W.T'.^'r  'I  ^r^^'"^  ^^'^"'^'''^  ^««**.  the  lai^goveror 
of  Newfoundland  who  has  promised  to  give  it  his  support  " 

^^m peace  mthout  thefish^ries^  has  begun  to  be  ih'e  cry.  If  «a- 
<rio<»m  has  failed,  we  are  pleased  to  see  that  ,Wer««  is  about  to 
unite  the  people  ;  and  1  am  very  much  mistaken  in  the  character 
of  the  '  middle'  and  '  south'  if  their  representatives  shall  for  a  mo- 
ment abandon  the  one  lota  of  the  rights  of  the  '  eastern'  population 
however  perverse  it  may  have  been  to  the  views  of  I  immens"* 
majority  of  our  citizens.     If  we  •  pull  together^  all  will  be  wdf 

28  * 


222 

E*tt.c..  from  the  Wmori.l  «>' »h«^N, wfoundland  M.rchan..  to  Adoairul  Ke.l,, 

mJst?hieflv '3!i^;V"'  "''•^'"'""  "'  "  «'''^»*  ""'^  .ndependent  nation 
must  chieflj^  depend  upon  our  preserving  the  sovereiRntv  of  the 

^*fh     fil  ""*'°"'  ^'f  *  heretofore  enjoyed  in  the  times  of  pe^e 

^:^^^z:i  o^%rrrci^.  -^  --  «^  <>^---  - 

"  By  former  treaties  with  France  and  the  United  States  of  Ame- 

h^nklT  ^7V'^!'^'^^  ""^'T^^  '!'**""  P^vileges  on  those  shore., 
banks,  coMt  of  Labrador,  and  m  the  Gulf  of  St.  Lawrence,  in  the 

T"  u^u°^  ^T  «*<:«"«ncy'»  memorialista  highly  impolit  c.  and 
^'h.ch  the  wisdom  of  the  British  government  never  would  concede 
except  under  very  peculiar  circumstances.  ^^onceae 

"  Fifteen  hundred  American  vessels  have  been  known  to  bo 
prosecuting  the  fashery  at  one  time  on  the  Labrador  coast,  bringing 
w.h  them  coliee,  teas,  spirits  and  other  articlen  of  contraband  -!!!! 
1  he  intsrcourse  of  our  fishermen  with  these  secret  enemies 

to  ou'r  rherT  ' Vl^'  "'n ''?  'f"'  ''  ^'^^'^ '"°-'  character  Z 
10  our  fishery.     The  small  planters  and  catchers  of  fish  which 

make  the  great  body  of  the  people  on  the  coast  of  Labrador  under 

O^e  influence  of  notions  imbibed  by  their  daily  intercourse  with 

men  whose  interests  are  at  war  with  ours,  become  dissatisfied  w 

their  supplying  merchants  who  are  unable  to  meet  their  fordgn 

competitors  upon  equal  ground.     The  next  step,  as  experTenfe 

heirdebts   rt'f  '^'^'  °",'-'  ™«^"^ '»  *''«'^  P°^«r  to  d'lscTarge 
fhfL     I   k      °^^''r'^  ""'^  insubordination  follow,  and  finally 
oZrT^  ^'T'  "''""."^^'^  from  their  own  government,  andtS 
emigrate  to  another,  to  the  great  loss  of  thei?  country.  ^ 

,.«.  f  •  '  ^l  P^''^®'  •'^''^®''  **»«  citizens  of  the  United  States 
resort,  in  great  numbers,  to  the  Banks,  where  they  anchor  in  v  o! 
ation  of  express  stipulations  to  the  great  annoyance  of  this  valua- 
s^rtlT^  "  "''  Newfoundland  trade.  Nor  is  it  possible  hat  the 
«UpuSlonf.  '"''  ''  °^''"  '^'^ ''  "^^^^^^  '""'^  '"  '^'  'breach  of  such 

AjIh^  *'''''  ^'""^'"^  °"^  °^  ''"P«''t''^  concessions  to  insidious 
have  y^t'sHteT-'th^f"""'  '^"'''  ^""'*  -cellency's  memoriahst^ 

ofiLrop:rd^uu:tT„z^  ^^  ^'"'"^"'^  '"^^  ^•^^  ^^^^^^^^^ 

.f'l/jfil''*'  ^"'^^^  ^^^}^^'  '"^"'  P'-ovisions,  and  every  other  article 
of  outfit  are  procured  upon  much  better  terms  than  the  nature  of 
th.ng^  will  admit  with  the  British.  These  combined  advantages  en 
frin  '  T  '°  "ndersell  the  British  merchant  in  the  forego  ma  ket- 

always  be  sustained  under  similar  circumstances. 1- 

litiJvifthT^'''^^  advantages  since  the  commencement  of  hosti- 
lities with  America,  derived  to  both  our  import  and  export  trade 
leaving  now  no  competitors  in  the  foreign  market,  and  what  fs  oi" 


223 


the  last  and  highest  importance,  the  increaae  of  otir  meftni  to  makf 
mariners,  while  those  of  our  enemies  tavai,  in  ike  same  proper* 
tion,  be  crippled,  nhow  the  wiadom  of  preserving  the  '  vantage 
eround'  we  now  stand  upon.  And  your  excellency's  memorialists 
ieel  the  more  argent  in  their  present  representation,  as  the  pros- 
pects which  happily  have  recently  opened  in  Europe,  may  afford 
a  well-grounded  hope  that  the  time  is  not  very  remote  when 
negotiations  may  be  opened  for  the  return  of  permanent  peace. 

"  From  the  protection  afibrded  to  the  trade  of  this  island  by 
your  excellency,  as  well  as  by  his  excellency,  sir  John  B.  War- 
ren, a  great  number  of  fishing  vessels  have  gone  to  Labrador  from 
Nova-Scctia,  the  number  of  them  employed  on  the  Labrador  shores 
this  season  has  been  double,  and  the  absence  of  their  former  intru- 
ders has  enabled  them  to  tish  unmolested.  Your  excellency's  me- 
morialists beg  to  press  upon  your  serious  consideration,  of  w^  ch 
they  cannot  too  often  urge  the  important  policy,  should  fortunately 
the  circurastances  of  Europe  ultimately  encourage  such  a  hope,  of 
wholly  excluding  foreigners  from  sharing  again  in  the  advantages 
of  fishing,  fi,/.^  which  a  large  proportion  of  our  best  national  de- 
fence will  be  derived." 


The  following  extracts  from  Colquhoun's  Treatise  on  the  Wealth, 
Power,  and  Resources  of  the  British  empire,  further  illustrate  the 
views  of  the  British  government  in  relation  to  the  contested  fish- 
eries at  the  negotiation  of  Ghent,  and  the  value  of  these  ^sheries. 
The  first  edition  of  Colquhoun's  work  was  published  on  the  20th 
of  July,  1814  ;  the  second  edition,  from  which  these  extracts  were 
made,  on  the  18th  of  April,  1815.  In  the  interval  between  these 
two  periods,  the  ne&;otiation  at  Ghent  commenced  and  terminated, 
and  Mr.  Russell's  letter  from  Paris  was  written. 


Extracts  from  Colquhoun's  Treatise  on  the  Wealth,  Power,  and  Resources  of 
the  British  empire — 2d  edit.  I8l5. 

*•  The  value  of  these  fisheries  (of  the  British  colonies  in  North 
*•  America,)  to  the  parent  state,  will  be  more  obvious  after  the 
"  lapse  of  20  or  30  years,  than  at  present.  Certain  it  is,  however, 
"  that  their  value  is  beyond  all  calculation  :  and  their  preservation 
"  as  apart  of  the  British  empire,  is  of  the  most  vital  importance." 
— p.  16,  note.     See  also  p.  ^'.'4. 

The  value  of  these  fisheries,  in  the  table  No.  8,  p.  36,  is  esti- 
mated at  £  7,560,000  sterling. 

•'  New-Brunswick  and  Nova-Scolia,  from  being  both  watered  by 
"  the  Bay  of  Fundy,  enjoy  advantages  over  Canada,  which  more 
"  than  compensate  a  greater  sterility  of  soil.  These  are  to  be 
'•  traced  to  the  valuable  and  extensive  fisheries  in  the  Bay  of  Fun» 
"  dy,  which,  in  point  of  abundance  and  variety  of  the  ^nest  fish, 
*♦  exceed  all  calculation,  and  may  be  considered  as  a  mine  of  gold — 


'■*? 


I( 


224 

"  «  treuure  which  cannot  be  fatimft^j  .      •_    , 

"  labour.  con,,,aralively  spe^kJnl  I       k°  ^'A^'  »'"«  ^^^'h  little 

"  -II  Europe."'   pp.  312-31 J      *'         *^  '°"'^  '"'  ^'^^'"ed  to  feed 

:  .;j^3;no  ca„,  this  valuer crortSE!:^^^^^ 

"  '^^'iomn'i:;::^^^^^^^^  annex. 

;;  incalculable  adva^t^t  an3  empTov  fv  ,?  ^"'Y  *'«^"  derive 
"  vewels  in  the  fishery  in  the  riveTs^^ll  ""'"''"  "'^  '"C"  and 
;;  of  Nova  Scotia.  .hL  ..TS;  fioi  T^ '  r«  ?  •^''^  ''^' 
dense  population  of  the  Northern  sS  1^!°  ^'''''''»-  The 
;  in  the  vicinity  of  the  most  p  ohSc  tlZTi-^'^'l^'^  «""»tion 

"  the  treaty  of  Paris,  i^Mav  1ft uT,^"'  .""f*"""''  ^^  f'^^co  by  , 
"  ble  fisheries  in  North  Zer'i.-'  ^^-^  1'''?'^  ""^^^^  ^osf  valua^ 
«  ^^m«  to  the  British  cZn^Zl  7jTf?^  •^'^'"^  «'  ''"»  /"•"""< 
in  all  the  markets  in  EuVope  and  t"e  We  t'foH-""''"^  ^  "A'oly 
certain  valuable  consideraSon  frnm  n  r  •"'^'®''  "''«  "Kht  to  a 
;;  the  British  government  ^tcoSeLn?'^?  "'"?^'  *^  -'•«'" 
"a  fishery  in  these  seas."    pf'g^^^^^de  the  privilege  ofcarryingon 

"  in  thttd'^Jhr^ortH^  P-fi*  *o  *he  individuals 

-fisheries.  Why,  therefor:!  rho'u,drot'2"''''.Vi«''^  *°  »"«5i' 
"  nve  a  similar  advantage  from  thp  Sll  •  1  ""'***'  '''"«dom  de- 
"  range  of  its  extensive  ^errSiSlnfc'i^  P°''*«'««  »^"hin  the 
;;  richest  and  most  prolific  in  Le  ^".^.^f.^;''^".'  ^^^'^^P^  the 
and  vessel  liable  to  confiscation  wh'chshould^'""^  "^"'"J'  ^^'P 
*'  hose  seas  without  previously  D^iT.  *  P';esume  to  fish  in 

"  ing  a  license  limited  to  a  certaKlVr"^*^  ^."^^'  «"d  receiv? 
''  ^ith  the  privilege  of  curinu  surhfi  h*^''?u  "  ^'^  "«.V  be  caught 
;;  All  nations  to  ha%e  an  equaTdaim  to  surS  '  '  ^"'".'^  *«"''<>"!«? 
tain  stations,  but  to  perliit  none  i^  ,1  ^,i'*;«"«««v'i.'nited  ^ocer- 
dies,  except  his  majesty's  subS  whi^hJ        •5'''^"''  ^^^^-In- 
"  nie,  or  in  the  parent  state."    p  sis  ''*'**'""  "««'dent  in  the  colo- 

"Fisheries.^nis^t'nirT^f':"'^*'^^^^^^ 
«  united  kingdom.    Whether  the  pol2'ion!.rfrP°''*^"^^  «°  the 

relation  to  the  Americans,  o7asTarrsiln  of'  '°"''^^''«^  "^'th 
*•  power,  it  IS  worthy  of  the  roost  n»r^?..  °^^  S^eat  maritime 
;;  !"«"t.     3rr.  Stewai  has  jtisuj  rSkefin^'i'"'''"  "^  ««^«-"- 

-'and,  (page  .90,;  that  .^theU:?;^^  on,  ZTLV^:'. 


c< 

C( 

l( 
«< 

«4 

i< 

«f 

<( 

(< 

i< 

<l 

l( 

r< 

K 

<< 

<( 
<( 
<l 


225 

rican  States,  io  the  Gulf  of  <?*  t 

of  the  wealth  of  the  EHatern  St«»«    r     ''*  «.''^"'««'t  »-e«ource8 
"choonem.offromTOto  iXon.  '  '^''""  ^^'^h  Rbout  2^ 

of  these,  about  HW  m^keTfrlri '"Ik^ 
on  the  Labrador  shore    from  «h  ***?  ^*"'t'  ofBelligle    "d 

European  market  is  Ih'ipDeTo?      .'."  ""^^  '»  '"tended  fo;  ?hf 

on  the  north  side  of  the  i«lnnH       .  V*^°°°"*"  'n«ke  their  f«rl. 
«on.  returning  vvith fin^"  "^^^^^^ J^J^^^'' '"«''«  two tHpl t  a ta 
are  dned.     The  number  oTm^'Vmni''  °?  P^"^".  ^here  the  fi,h 
-ted  at  between  titleen  l^Vn^^E ^^  If^^''-^  ^ 


-ted  at  between-^  IT^::!;;^^^^^ 

to  be  very  great.     To  see  Trh  ^''^  P^^^^ta  on 

';ver  on  our'own  coasts:::d  in'olir/r^r^'th 


«t  are  known  lo  be  very  creat      'i'^"'  "",""'  ""o  ">e  profit*  on 

and  navol  power  on  oJr^wn  coasts  «n  ^^  "  «°"^<^«  ^^ 'vea.S 
nbandoned  to  the  AmericanTis  mtch  to  b^  ""'  '''y  ^'^'^'^^^ 
be  distressing,  were  it  not  thatTh?!  ''Totted,  and  would 
»rhole,  with  such  advantages  as  'tt*""'  ""^  ^«-o<=cupying  the 
tion,  ,8  afforded  in  the  cuh!vn?i«  ?''°"  P''«*^'"de  all  comDeS 
"'ard's  Island."    pplaie  3lT  "  ""'  ^^"'^•"ent  of  pS^^eS: 

and  .mmediate  interest  in  tsl'^,t^^^^^^^^^  because  the^c^ 

they  had  rested  a  right  tChtfiXneM^rn^""'^'  ^-^  ^^^"nj'ing  fha 
&|"I.  r'"^  ««^'»«t  this  wnlm',  rtr'"^'*'^''»'°4hia 
f  nited  States,  including  th*.Jr  Jl!.        '  • '  *"*  «''gument  thaAh^ 

not  claim  bj  r"-'>S,'a  righUvhich'^r^'r  ''  l^«"'-«n     cUw 
the  people  o^Massachusetts     ThI  .«       ^^  ^.?^"  exercised  onlv  bv 

«i!f  Ju''  "'  ^'•O"  Jocal  causes    S'  '^^^"J^^'nent  or  exer- 

acquisition  of  Louis  anT-'i^i"'''-  ^'"^^  "^^^r  a^rLaJ,;  hv  VL^ 

.- — ,  „g  aavs. 


226 


the  crown. 


H 


fishing  liberties 
wherever  it  max 
continuance  of  a 


hbirever  lofty,  is  so  inconsistent  with  the  circumdtahcee  of  the  case, 
and  with  any  sober  construction  which  can  be  given  to  that  treaty, 
that  he  desires  to  be  excused  from  seriously  examining  its  validity. 
From  this  contemptuous  reference  to  a  position  to  which  he  had 
subscribed  without  hinting  an  objection,  and  which  he  cannot  an- 
swer, would  not  one  imagine  that  the  treaty  of  1783  was  a  capitula- 
tion of  vanquished  subjects  at  the  <eetof  a  victorious  and  magnani- 
mous master  ?  Mr.  Russell's  spait  of  independence,  like  his 
patriotism,  is  bold  and  intrepid  in  generalities,  pliant  and  submissive 
in  particulars.  He  gravely  tells  you,  that  until  the  Revolution,  the 
fishing  liberties  *"  the  colonies  were  held  at  the  bare  pleasure  of 
':*  '  Qxious  for  the  repurchase  of  our  forfeited^ 
■•^j  is  willing  to  give  for  them  an  equivalent 
;  provided  always,  that  it  shall  not  be  the 
armtess  right  to  travel  upon  a  Western  highway. 
He  disclaims  all  pretension  to  a  liberty  of  his  country  stipulated  in 
a  treaty,  unless  as  a  gracious  temporary  donation  from  the  bounty  of 
his  Britannic  majesty,  which,  at  the  first  blast  of  war,  the  mpnarch 
had  rightfully  resumed  j  and  although  he  has  signed  his  name  with 
his  colleagues  to  numerous  papers  claiming  it  as  a  permanent  stipu- 
lated right,  unalienat .  •  but  by  our  own  renunciation,  and  in  no  wise 
held  at  the  will  of  the  British  king,  he  will  not  be  thought  so  simple 
as  to  have  believed  a  word  of  what  he  has  concurred  in  saying,  or 
to  have  imagined  that  at  the  treaty  of  1783,  the  situation  of  the  par- 
ties was  such  that  the  United  States  could  bargain  for  the  fishing 
liberties,  or  receive  them  otherwise  than  as  precarious  and  tempo- 
rary grants,  resumable  at  the  will  of  the  grantor,  so  as  to  leave  us 
♦•  withcut  any  title  to  them  rvhatsoevei  '  V/as  Mr.  Russell  ignorant, 
that  through  a  large  portion  of  the  Revolutionary  war,  it  was  a  de- 
liberate and  determined  purpose  of  Congress  that  the  United  States 
should  include  the  northern  British  provinces  ?  That  express  pro- 
vision for  the  admission  of  Canada  into  the  Union,  was  made,  in  the 
Confederation  of  1781  ?  That,  finally,  when  Congress  prescribed 
the  boundary  line,  which,  for  the  sake  of  peace,  they  would  ac- 
cept, and  which  was  that  stipulated  in  the  treaty,  they  passed  va- 
rious resolutions,  declaring  the  rights  of  the  United  Stales  in  the 
fisheries,  and  the  necessity  of  stipulating  for  them,  if  possible,  by 
the  treaty  ;  but  that  under  no  circumstances,  v/hatever,  were  they 
to  be  given  up  ?  That  in  all  the  deliberations  of  Congress  the  ne- 
cessity of  this  reservation  was  avowedly  connected  with  the  aban-* 
donment  of  the  pretension  to  include  all  the  northern  provinces  in 
the  Confederation  ?  That  the  terms  of  the  treaty  of  1783,  or  ra- 
ther of  the  preliminaries  of  1782,  which  were  word  for  word  the 
same,  were  almost  entiialy  dictated  by  the  United  States  ?  That 
this  very  third  article,  securing  the  fisheries,  and  that  very  portion 
of  it  stipulating  for  the  liberty  within  British  jurisdiction,  was  made 
a  sine  qua  non,  by  the  American  commissioners,  two  of  whom  ex- 
pressly declared  that  they  would  not  nign  the  treaty  without  it?_  and 
to  solve  Mr.  Russell's  scruples,  whether  an  interest  of  the  State  of 


227 

Massachusetts  is  an  interest  of  the  whoU  r- 

two  commissioners  was  a  citizen  !f%fuH?'^°~*'»at  one  of  those 

nd,c„I„„,  to  deserve  a»  ^n,iT"'         "  '""-8'»™<»  boMt,  t„ 

forth';  crcttT  .ttTh-  "'•■ '"'«™.  'o  indirect  inference. 

says  in  his  original  letter  of  llth  p  I     ""'""i  '<"'  "^  expressfv 

that  he  people  of  the  whole  Western  r?."^"'"  °f  'O""  May. 
:  J'';^,^'"  »;»»  ■"'".ense  tract  of  tSo,^""''^-  ""^  "  »"»ffen<li»g 

P~;r 'Xt  t:«^'if";  '-e  eye  of  the  H.„.e  of  He- 
of  those  whici,  appears  ,o°h;:'sX",i,l'™'  "!''  ^''^■'  i"- 
«r  ;  for  m  that  version  he  nn^iifil!!  !t     ^  conscience  of  the  writ 
to  them.  «'  or  but  fZlly-  ^  L.-f""  T'***  ""^^  «^  «^^  by  acWbl 
^'  fens  of  an  immense  t^t  of  tPr.V^  '^^'^''  "  ^»^«  "noff;nd^n«  S 

even  this  concession  to  tKhfr'pn  k  f  ^  "««*"'  ««  if  grudgine 
sentence  to  reduce  it  in  JT  "^'^®'^'°«n'  he  takes  care  in  the  «fmf 
tent,  by  adding  to  hL  «doS  T  "^""'^  ""  ^'  e»>arges  it  'neT 

'•  ™en,"  the  w^ds  '^nnuX  d^  reS^ ^ '^''T  4  ^^  ^"^  - 
it  was  not  so  th^t  tu^      ^  -^  "^creasing  m  numbsr  " 

wontto  reasorortt\^^rr f^rff^"^  «-°'"^-  -re 

"theTrf'  "  ?n^^«-'  by  M^of  5;!^"-.  ;7^.  a  resolution 

the  welfare  of  these  United  StatenhlTih?-  I'*.  •"  ^''^»^«1  ^o 

dt  the  expiration  of  the  w»r   Ik!  i  f        .    'nhabUants  thereof 

"  and  undisturbed  exercise  of  fh^-'^  '^""""^  t°  «»Joy  the  free 

;;  Banks  of  NewfoundfaTanI    hrotSeTS  ''t  '^ ''''  ^  '^^ 

..  fj"?  ^'"^raca,  preserving  invioLethI «      r^  ''r'^'  ^""^  «eas  of 

and  the  said  States."        ^  '"^'oiate  the  treaties  between  France 

io^nnlt^LTn^ruZ^^^^  a-tionwas  made  by  Mr 

States,"  and  the  word  wi  tterZ'V'''  ""'^''^  '' these  lfn£' 
";elve.  And  so.  on  the  Sth  ofTut  ^*.'  ^°''  f  '«»  «'«'««  ou  o£ 
t  was  essential  to  the  welfare  of  a/Z  th.   'n '"'"''^'^  Passed-that 

one  section  of  'the  {jnfon  l^T'^t  ^''"^ ''"  '"^^''^st  important  to 
ported  as  the  interes?  of  Ihe  wEorft'/"  ^^  <=onsidered  and  "^i 
subjects  from  the  navigation  of  he  M^   • '  "«'?'  '^  ««'»ding  BrS 
contended  for,  as  the  interest  of  h    ^l'?W'  «^ouId  be  claimed  or 

-hethergrcatorsmall"t:emia;h.W^^^^^^^^^^^^ 

'       ""'  ^""  «""««ing  to  the  fullest 


226 

ej^eut,  that  it  is,  nevertheless,  an  intereet  of  the  whole  Union,  I 
only  claim  that  other  interests,  alike  local  in  their  exercise,  should 
be  entitled  to  the  same  benefit.  If  the  gain  by  the  .war,  of  a  right 
to  interdict  British  subjects  from  descenc  >ng  the  Mississippi  river, 
4^ad  been  to  the  people  of  the  West  an  object  of  profit  as  great  as 
the  privation  of  the  fishing  liberties  by  the  same  war  would  have 
been  to  the  people  of  the  East  an  object  of  loss,  the  interests,  as 
concerned  the  whole,  would  have  been  equally  balanced  ;  but  in- 
asmuch as  the  duty  of  preserving  poasessions  already  and  before 
enjoyed,  is  paramount  to  that  of  making  new  acquisitions,  the  prin- 
ciple of  equity,  as  well  as  the  spirit  of  union,  would  have  dictated 
as  the  true  policy,  that  of  maintaining  both  interests  in  the  state  in 
which  they  had  been  before  the  war,  rather  than  that  of  sacrificing 
one  part  of  the  Union  for  the  profit  of  another. 

If  the  comparative  value  of  the  two  interests  had  been  as  dis- 
proportionate as  they  have  been  represented  by  Mr.  Russell,  and 
the  balance  of  value  had  been  on  the  side  to  which  he  assigns  it, 
still  the  question  of  right,  remaining  the  same,  the  small  interest  of 
the  East  could  not  with  justice  have  been  sacrificed  to  the  greater 
interest  of  the  West,  without  compensation.  For  although  the 
whoir  ^Jnion  may  possess  the  power  of  preferring  the  interests  of 
the  many  to  those  of  the  few^  they  have  mo  \  wer  of  arbitrary  dis- 
posal over  the  liberties  of  the  smallest  portion  of  the  community. 
If,  by  a  solemn  article  of  the  Constitution,  it  is  provided  that  the 
private  property  of  the  humblest  individual  shall  not  be  taken  for 
public  use,  without  just  compensation,  how  much  more  imperious 
is  the  prohibition  of  taking  away  the  scanty  and  hard-earned  live- 
lihood of  a  few  fishermen,  even  were  they  annually  decreasing  in 
number,  to  bestow  new  and  exclusive  benefits  upon  a  distant  portion 
of  population,  without  compensation  to  the  indigent,  without  conso- 
lation to  the  bereaved  sufferer. 


2'29 


CONCLUSION. 

The  interests  of  the  West  are  the  interests  of  the  whole  Union-r 
and  so  are  the  interests  of  the  Ea8t;~and  let  the  statesmen  who 
are  the  servants  of  the  whole,  beware  of  setting  them  in  conflict 
with  each  other.    A  review  of  these  papers  will  show  that  the  in- 
terest really  at  stake  in  the  negotiation  of  Ghent,  a  deep  and  import- 
ant stake,  was  an  interest  of  the  East;  that  there  was  no  Western 
interest  aflected  by  the  article  first  proposed  by  Mr.  Gallatin,  or  by 
the  amendment  finally  offered  to  the  British  plenipotentiaries  at  his 
proposal,  and  rejected  ;  that  the  only  plausible  objection  to  it,  rest- 
ed upon  a  gratuitous  assumption,  contrary  to  all  reason  and  expe- 
rience,  that  it  would  have  given  a  right  of  access  to,  and  of  inter- 
course with,  our  Indians,  to  the  British.     This,  the  British  had 
possessed  by  another  article  of  another  treaty,  acknowledged  to  be 
extinguished  by  the  wa^-but  it  would  no  more  have  been  granted 
to  them,  by  a  right  to  navigate  the  Mississippi,  than  by  a  right  to 
enter  the  harbour  of  New- York.    The  whole  argument  rested  upon 
a  Jallacy  ;  a  mis-statement  of  the  question.     Happy  would  it  have 
been  for  Mr.  Russell,  if,  after  assenting  and  pledging  his  signatures 
to  the  decision  of  the  majority,  he  had  as  cautiously  withheld  from 
his  government,  and  his  country,  the  allegation  of  his  reasons  for 
having  voted  against  it,  as  he  did  at  the  time  of  the  discussion,  from 
his  colleagues.     But,  in  the  vehemence  of  his  zeal  to  vindicate  his 
motives  for  one  unfortunate  vote  at  Ghent,  which  but  for  himself 
would  probably  never  have  been  known  to  the  world,  he  has  been 
necessitated  to  assert  principles  of  international  and  municipal  law 
and  to  put  forth  statements  as  of  fact,  more  unsubstantial  than  the' 
pageant  of  a  vision.    He  has  been  reduced  to  the  melancholy  office 
of  misrepresenting  the  subject  of  which  he  treats  the  conduct  and 
sentiments  of  his  colleagues  in  a  great  national  trust  and  his  own. 
He  has  been  compelled  to  disavow  his  own  signatures,  to  contradict 
his  own  assertions,  and  to  charge  himself  with  his  own  interpola- 
trons.     He  has  been  forced  to  enter  the  lists  as  the  champion  of  his 
country's  enemy,  upon  a  cause  which  he  had  been  specially  entrust- 
ed to  defend  and  maintain— to  allege  the  forfeiture  of  liberties  which 
he  had  been  specially  instructed  not  to  surrender— to  magnify  by 
boundless  exaggerations,  an  ideal,  and  to  depreciate  in  equal  pro- 
portion, a  real,  interest  of  his  country— to  profess  profound  re- 
spect for  the  integrity  and  talents  of  men,  while  secretly  denouncing 
their  conduct  as  treacherous  and  absur<i— and,  finally,  to  traduce 
before  the  Representative  Assembly  of  the  nation,  the  character  of 
the  absent,  and  the  memory  of  the  dead. 

It  has  been  my  duty,  not  only  in  justice  to  my  own  character  and 
to  that  of  the  colleagues  with  whom  I  acted,  but  in  respectful  defe- 
rence to  the  opinion  of  that  nation  of  which  we  were,  and  two  of 
us  still  are,  the  servants,  to  justify  the  conduct  thus  denounced  in 

^9 


23U 

the  face  of  the  country— anJ  lo  prove  that  the  letter  wliich  contain- 
ed that  denunciation  was  o  tissue  of  misrepresentaticns.    The  at- 
tack of  Mr.  Russell  was  n1  first  secret — addressed  to  the  Execu- 
tive officer  of  the  administration,  at  the  head  of  the  t'epartment,  un- 
der whose  instructions  the  mission  at  Ghent  had  acted.     It  was 
made  under  the  veil  of  concealment,  and  in  the  form  of  a  private 
letter.     In  that  respect  it  had  failed  of  its  object.     It  had  neither 
made  the  Executive  a  convert  to  its  doctrines,  nor  impaired  his 
confidence  in  the  members  of  the  majority  at  Ghent.     Defeated  in 
this  purpose,  after  i  lapse  of  seven  years,  Mr.  Russell  is  persuaded 
to  beheve  that  he  can  turn  his  letter  to  account,  especially  with  the 
aid  of  such  corrections  of  the  copy  in  possession  as  the  supposed  loss 
of  the  original  would  enable  him  to  make  without  detection,  by  bring- 
ing it  before  the  Legislative  Assembly  of  the  Union.     Foiled  in 
this  assault,  by  the  discovery  of  the  original,  he  steals  a  march  upon 
refutation  and  exposure,  by  publishing  a  second  variety  of  his  let- 
ter, in  a  newspaper  ;  and  when  the  day  of  retribution  comes,  dis- 
closing every  step  of  his  march  on  this  winding  stair,  he  turns  upon 
me,  with  the  charge  of  having,  by  the  use  of  disingenuous  artifices,  led 
him  unawares  into  the  disclosure  of  a  private  letter,  never  intended 
for  ihe  public,  and  seduced  him  to  present  as  a  duplicate,  what  he  had 
not  intended  to  exhibit  as  such.    To  this  new  separate  and  person- 
al charge,  I  have  replied,  by  proving  the  paper  which  contains  it 

to  be,  like  the  letter  from  Pans,  a  tissue  of  misrepresentations 

For  the  justification  of  myself,  and  of  my  colleagues  at  Ghent, 
nothing  further  was  necessary.  But  the  letter  of  Mr.  Russell  from' 
Pans,  contains  doctrines  with  reference  to  law,  and  statements 
with  reference  to  facts,  involving  the  rights,  the  harmony,  and  the 
peace,  of  this  Union. 

"  Dangerous  conceits  aie  in  their  nature  poisom.''^ 

If  the  doctrines  of  Mr.  Russell  are  true,  the  liberties  of  the  peo- 
ple of  the  United  States  in  the  Newfoundland,  Gulf  of  St.  Law- 
rence, and  Labrador  fisheries,  are  at  this  day  held  by  no  better 
tenure  than  the  pleasure  of  the  king  of  Great  Britain,  and  will  be 
abrogated  by  the  first  act  of  hostility  between  thp  two  nations. 

If  his  statements  are  true,  those  liberties  are  the  mere  accommo- 
dation of  a  few  fishermen,  annually  decreasing  in  number,  too 
worthless  to  be  accounted  to  the  rest  of  the  nation  of  any  benefit 
at  all.  •' 

If  his  statements  are  true,  the  propositions  made  by  the  Ameri- 
can  to  the  British  plenipotentiaries,  on  the  1st  of  December,  1814, 
gave  unrestrained  and  undefined  access  for  the  British  to  the  Indians 
withm  our  territories— laid  our  country  bare  to  swarms  of  British 
smugglers,  and  British  emissaries— and  exposed  the  anofiending 
citizens  of  an  immense  territory  to  all  the  horrors  of  savage  warfare. 

I  now  submit  to  the  deliberate  judgment  of  the  nation,  whether 
I  have  not  proved  that  these  doctrines  and  statements  are  equally 
and  utterly  without  foundation— That  the  rights  and  liberties  in  the 


231 

fisheries,  are  held  at  the  will,  not  of  ihe  king  of  Great  Britain,  but 
of  the  people  of  the  United  States  ihemselres,  founded  upon  na^ 
tional  right,  unbroken  possession,  and  irrevocable  acknowledgment 
—  That  their  value  both  immediate  and  remote,  direct  and  conse- 
m2  u  "  r™^"«!'y  important  not  only  to  the  Commonwealth  of 
Massachusetts,  but  to  the  whole  Union-That  the  proposition  made 
to  the  British  plenipotentiaries,  on  the   Ist  of  December,  1814, 

Zr^lli  ""T^^fk  ^T^  S'^^°  *°  ^^^  ^"t'«^'  '"«tead  of  an  unre- 
etramed  and  undefined  access  to  our  Indians,  no  access  to  them 
whatever— That  it  would  have  given  them  access,  even  to  the 
Mississippi  river,  only  from  a  single  spot  in  the  British  territories : 
and  a  right  to  descend  the  river  only  with  merchandise  upon  which 
the  duties  should  have  been  paid,  and  subject  to  all  the  custom- 
house  regulations. 

The  question  in  relation  to  the  Mississippi,  can  never  be  revived. 
1  hat  spectre  is  forever  laid.    Great  Britain  has  not  only  disavowed 

K  A^  \?  '^  '^^'''^  "''  "°"'^  ''^^«  admitted  as  valid,  she  has 
abandoned  that  upon  which  she  herself  exclusively  rested  it.  Ot 
its  value,  in  confirmation  of  the  opinions  which  I  have  expressed, 

If^^oF'^T-  f  ^l*""'  f  °°™  ^^^  '^^^^^^^  •"  parliament,  on  the  peace 
01  1782,  which  show  how  It  was  estimated  by  her  greatest  states- 
men at  that  time.  Those  estimates  had  been  confirmed  by  an  ex- 
perience of  thirty  years.  The  slumbers  of  the  unofiending  citizens 
of  the  Western  Country,  can,  therefore,  never  more  be,  if  they 
ever  were,  disquieted  by  the  visits  of  this  apparition  to  the 
g.impser.  of  the  moon.  But  the  day  may  come,  though  I  trust  it  is 
far  remote,  when  the  title  to  our  fishing  liberties  may  again  be  in 
peril  as  imminent  as  it  was  at  the  negotiation  of  Ghent.  And  if,  in 
tnat  day,  the  American  statesmen  who  may  be  charged  with  the  de- 
fence and  support  of  the  rights,  liberties,  and  interests  of  their 
country,  shou  d  deem  it  among  the  qualifications  for  their  office  to 
possess  some  knowledge  of  the  laws  of  nations,  some  acquaintance 
with  the  history  of  their  country,  and  some  patriotism  more  com- 
prehensive  than  party  spirit  or  sectional  prejudice  ever  gave  or 
ever  can  give,  1  trust  in  God  that  their  proficiency  will  have  led 
them  to  the  diacovery,  that  all  treaties,  and  all  artides  of  treaties, 
and  all  hberhesvecogmsed  in  treaties,  are  not  abrogated  by  war ; 
that  our  fashing  iberties  were  neither  before  nor  since  the  Revolu- 
tionary war,  held  at  the  mere  pleasure  of  the  British  crown  ;  and 
1.!  !f.  r  interests  and  possessions  of  one  section  of  the  Union 
are  not  to  be  sacrihed  for  the  imaginary  profit  of  another,  either  by 

alZflf}       r^^^l  °'  ^^  '''*'"S  them  away  as  the  interests  of 
O  disaffected  part  of  the  countnj. 


APPENDIX. 


h  W€sternK.ri>jntaries, 

In  the  remarks  upon  Mr.  Russell's  letter  and  duplicate,  which 
were  submitted  to  the  House  of  Representatives,  I  expressed  the 
most  unqualified  confidence  in  the  justice  of  the  West,  and  my  en- 
tire conviction  that  however  justly  the  inhabitants  of  that  portion 
of  the  Union  might  have  been  incensed  against  the  majority  of  the 
Ghent  mission,  upon  the  statements  and  representations  of  those 
letters,  yet  that  when  the  plain  unvarnished  tale  of  real  fact  should 
be  laid  before  them,  they  would  not  only  acquit  the  majority  of  any 
intended  sacrifice  of  their  interests,  but  would  find  in  the  measure 
itself,  distmctly  disclosed  to  them  in  its  own  nature,  nothing  to  dis- 
approve. In  every  part  of  this  Union,  when  the  whole  truth  can 
once  be  exhibited  to  the  people,  there  is  a  rectitude  of  public  opi- 
nion which  neither  individual  enmity,  local  prejudices,  nor  party 
rancour  can  withstand  or  control.  Upon  this  public  virtue  of  my 
country  I  have  ever  relied,  nor  has  it  now,  nor  ever  disappointed  me. 
I  have  the  satisfaction  of  knowing  from  various  sources  of  informa- 
ti^on,  public  and  private,  thatthe  general  sentiment  of  the  Western 
Country,  wherever  the  Remarks  as  well  as  the  Letters  have  been 
read,  has  done  justice  to  the  intentions  of  the  majority,  as  well  as 
to  the  motives  of  Mr.  Russell. 

Yet,  since  the  communication  of  his  Letters  to  the  House  of  Re- 
presentatives, the  uses  for  which  it  was  suppose'd  the  production 
of  them  was  intended,  and  to  which  they  were  adapted,  have 
not  been  altogether  abandoned  in  some  parts  of  the  Western 
Country.  The  St.  Louis  Enquirer  has  pursued  this  purpose,  in 
the  simplest  form,  by  publishing  the  message  of  the  President  of 
the  United  States  to  the  House  of  Representatives  of  7th  May ; 
and  Mr.  Russell's  Private  letter,  and  by  suppressing  the  Duplicate 
and  the  Remarks. 

In  the  Kentucky  Reporter,  published  in  Lexington,  and  in  the 
Argus  of  Western  America,  published  at  Frankfort,  various  publi- 
cations have  appeared,  exhibiting  similar  views  of  the  subject,  re- 
presenting the  proposition  made  to  the  British  plenipotentiaries, 
on  the  1st  of  December,  1814,  as  a  very  grievous  offence,  and 
ascribing  it  exclusively  to  me.     The  subject  has,  however,  been 


233 

vS!*illL'"'"""  "r  TP*"*'"*' '"  *^^  ^oumAh  Public  Ad. 
nrnnS  '  ^"""^  °*''*''"  ^^'"8^'  '*  ^'^  ^«*"  inquired  how,  if  the 

proposal  was  so  very  exceptionable  it  could,  under  any  circum- 
stances  have  received  the  sanction  or  signatur;  of  Mr  Clay  ' 

Ihe  following  erfitona/  article  in  the  Frankfort  Arcus  of  18th 
July,  seems  intended  to  answer  that  question,  and  aUhough  col- 
^m.ng  some  severe  strictures  upon  "  the  Secr;tary,''  minX  wUh 
them  some  cand.d  admissions,  in  a  spirit  upon  which  1  would  w  h 
equal  candour  animadvert. 

From  the  Argus  of  Western  America,  Frankfort,  Kentucky,  18,h  J.ly,  i828. 
THE  GHENT  MISSION. 

dhJH'^  Penndoes  not  understand  the  circumstances  attending  the 
Ghent  negotiation,  or  he  wilfully  conceals  the  truth.  ^ 

th^vthn  u  *  '"«'''"ct'«n8  given  to  our  commissioners  were,  that 
ilhVnr  R  .°?  '«;?*  *°  ""^  stipulation  by  which  the  pre-ex  stins 
right  of  British  subjects  to  trade  with  the  Indians  living  within  ou? 

wetdtlUoS^l  fhTwaf  "^"^^  "'"^"^  ''^  ^"^'-'  ^^'^^ 
^olL^^''®  aclmg  under  these  instructions,  it  was  proposed  by  Mr. 

witfa^clf'V.K'  ^'i''^  '^'  ^''^  »^^'g«^'''"  °*  the  MissisLppi 
7yt  ?Z     A  '^  ^^Tu^^  ""J"  ^^'"^^'^^''  ou  condition  that  the  liberl 
of  thpW  .,*""?  ^-^  °  V*'^,  ^"'•'^  '^'t*^'"  *^«  exclusive  jurisdiction 

Un  t.d  S^t's  "%T''  '''°"v  '^^  '^'^"^'""^'l  t«  the  citizens  of  the 
united  states.  This  proposition  was  strenuously  opposed  by  Mr. 
Clay  on  the  ground  that  it  would  give  the  British  those  very  means 
of  influence  over  the  Indians  of  which  it  was  the  object  ol  thl  go! 

ZiZV"  V''  '^'."k  ^'  ^^'"^^'^  '^y  *»'«•'•  insiructiLs  ^At 
fion  .JIrT'  '^'^T^'  '°»  ^"^'^'•'''  ^^'■^  favourable  to  the  proposi- 
tion, and  Clay  »ud  Russell  against  it.    In  the  end,  however,  JBoLrrf 

waS^thaTtii?^^  ^^^^^*«^-  ^^•-"-'  -  -^  P-P-^on 
"  Subsequently,  however,  the  overthrow  of  Napoleon  having 
kft  us  to  contend  single-handed  with  the  undivided  power  of  S 
fd"to'?hr«Tr'"'"^  ^•''"Sht  proper  to  change  the  terms  offer- 
structions  t^  rh.^r^^'"™'"''  ""'^  «^'^°'''^i"g'y  «eot  additional  in- 
ff  r!T  M  ^°*'  directing  our  commissioners  to  make  a  peace 
If  practicable  upon  the  simple  condition,  that  each  party  should 
be  placed  m  the  same  situation  in  which  the  war  found^bem 

At  the  commencement  of  the  war,  the  British  had  a  right  bv 
treaty,  not  only  to  navigate  the  Mississippi,  but  to  trade  with  all 

ZZT^?  ^°K  •'"'•  ^^'°"''^"  °"'-  ^^"'"'"^^ione^^  were  instructed 
be  nZ  A  the  continuance  of  this  right,  if  r  .  oetter  terms  could 
be  procured.  Under  these  instructions  a  proposition  relative  to 
the  Mississippi  and  the  fisheries,  similar  to  that  which  had  been 
rejected,  was  again  presented,  adopted,  and  sent  to  the  British 
commissioners.     But  it  did  not  restore  the  right  to  navigate  the 


A      • 


234 

Mississippi  in  as  full  a  manner  as  the  British  goTcrnrocnt  desired, 
and  on  that  account,  we  presume,  was  rejected. 

'*Now  we  believe  the  truth  to  be,  that  Mr.  Clay  still  opposed 
this  proposition,  believing  that  it  never  ought  to  be  made  b^  our 
government,  and  perhaps  was  not  necessar)^  to  the  conclusion  of 
the  peace.  But  as  the  government  had  authorized  a  treaty  to  be 
made  on  the  statw  ante  helium,  and  as  the  proposition  amounted  to 
nothing  more,  he  did  not  refuse  to  sign  his  name  to  the  letter 
which  contained  rot  only  that,  but  all  the  other  propositions  made 
in  the  treaty. 

"  The  Secretary,  in  his  strictures,  confounds  together  the  dis- 
cussions which  took  place  before  and  after  the  reception  of  the 
additional  instructions,  by  which  means  more  discriminating  heada 
than  Penn's  have  been  deceived. 

♦-  The  commissioners  at  Ghent  assumed  the  principle,  that  the 
right  to  the  fisheries  in  British  waters,  on  our  side,  and  the  riu^ht  to 
navigate  the  Mississippi,  on  their  side,  secured  by  the  treaty  of '83,. 
were  not  abrogated  by  the  war,  but  continued  in  full  force  without 
any  new  stipulation  at  the  peace.  The  Secretary  calls  this  the 
American  side  of  the  argument^  and  exults,  with  many  thanks  to 
God,  that  it  has  been  sustained  through  subsequent  negotiations, 
•ad  particularly  in  forming  the  convention  with  Great  Britain  in 
1818.  Surely  this  exultation  is  not  only  without  cause,  but  con- 
trary to  reason.  If  the  principle  so  strenuously  asserted  by  him 
be  correct,  what  have  we  gained  by  it  ?  At  the  close  of  the  war 
our  right  to  the  fisheries  and  the  British  right  to  navigate  the  Alis- 
sissippi,  existed  to  the  full  extent  at  which  they  were  secured  by 
the  treaty  of  '83,  and  would  have  continued  so  to  exist  without  any 
additional  stipulation  until  this  moment.  But  the  convention  of 
1818,  restricts  our  fishing  liberties,  and  says  not  a  word  about  the 
navigation  of  the  Mississippi.  Hence,  if  the  Secretary's  position 
be  sound,  we  have  lost  by  it  a  part  of  our  fishing  liberties,  and 
the  British  retain  the  right  to  navigate  the  Mississippi  in  its  fullest 
extent !  How  can  the  Secretary  consistently  sjiy,  that  they  abandon- 
ed this  right  in  tlie  convention  of  1818,  when  not  a  word  is  said 
about  it  in  that  compact  ?  If  he  were  PresideAt  and  the  Bi-itish 
were  to  claim  the  right  to  navigate  the  Mississippi  to-morrow,  he 
would  be  obliged  to  grant  their  claim  valid  or  contradict  his  owa 
favourite  principle  !  !'* 

Remarks  on  tl>c  Above  Editoria)  Article. 

This  article  admits  that  Mr.  Clay  did  not  refuse  to  sign  his  name 
to  the  proposition  made  to  the  British  plenipotentiaries  on  the  1st 
of  December,  1814,  of  confirming  to  the  British  the  right  of  navi- 
gating the  Mississippi.  It  admits  that  the  proposition  was  fully 
warranted  by  the  instructions  of  19th  October,  18H,  and  formally 
assigns  them,  as  his  nn  ive  (or  not  refusing  his  assent  to  the  pro 
posal.      It  does,  indeed,  say  that   he  believed   the  proposition 


893       •  # 

affirms  that  the  instructions  of  J 9th  October   l«ui.,fh^    ff    i 
stuctbnsof  19Tho\         •"*'»«  "'i«^io»  "as  taken  after  the    „- 

ch^^ ;:  ci:GrL'l?:;:L^:e::"  — «*— ^ »-  «ppeai^  to  m^ 
le:;t ;  vhi  r'^^Ki--  ''^'^""  ^p""«"-  '^'»>^-  -"^y  b^«- 

na  ht  ^  '^'^  "  P"^''<^  niinister  uouhl  be  justified  in  refus- 

ng  h.8  signature  to  a  proposition  warranted  or  even  reouLd  bv 

l?nUf   1  "■  *'"^  ''^'P«'=*  ♦*'''•  a  ni»<^»i  greater  latitude  than  J 

^fbi-L^re^S'Silr.^;;?;;,?' 7^  itr°|  ^'T  ?'™'  T 

oMLl'^f"!.'"'  'r"'-  '■™""  "-  P?o  -^  on  'STas3.' 

?r"  m   hi'/l^hT^r'  """,'  r '"'  '"•' '"'"  *"=  "■"■"J  "TthhSSt 
r..?™      "     J  •    ".''  '""'"  ™''=''  »"  ^'o  C'li  <if  November      Thi. 

IweenlheS^       course    namely,  Ihe  receipt  in  Ibe  inlerval  be? 

,  »m„lt     «  .P«"od9  of  the  ».a.  ,„.(«.«,„,»  from  the  government 

■8  amp  jr  sufficenl  to  justify  him  for  vieUine  his  assent  at  l?.rh„; 

could  be  procured.    Rut  it  intimates  the  bel  ef  of  Mr  cTav  that 

1  e  ZZZ^lfA  "T;  ''■  '^''^''''^'  ^-^  instfuctioif  Ye 

«ne  of  the  government  to  this  meo.uro,  is  «-eishty,  and  whoever 


will  dol/ consider  the  situation  and  circumstances  of  this  nation  an5 
Jts  government,  in  October,  1814,  will,  I  believe,  not  be  very  ready 
ro  join  ma  censure  upon  the  government  for  offering  a  peace  on  the 
ham  of  the  state  before  the  war.     There  was  then  a  heavy  re- 
s|)onsibility,  both  upon  the  government  and  upon  the  mission  at 
trhent,  that  the  war  should  be  concluded.    This  nation  would  have 
w  •^"rt   a  r'Jpture  of  the  negotiation  upon  light  or  trivial  causes, 
ana  It  It  bad  been  broken  ofi'  ii[»on  a  refusal  to  continue  to  the  Bri- 
nsh  a  mere  nominal  right  to  navigate  the  Mississippi,  possessed  by 
them  and  harmless  to  us  until  the  war  had  begun,^e  government 
and  the  mission  would  have  had  a  very  differenWask  to  justify 
themselves  to  this  country,  from  that  which  they  now  have.     If 
instead  of  writing  his  letter  of  11th  February,  1816,  from  Paris' 
Mr.  Kussell  had  brought  the  substance  of  it  home  in  his  pocket' 
nith  the  war  still  raging,  and  he  had  said,  We  have  not  concluded 
the  peace— we  have  broken  off  the  negotiation— but  here  are  our 
reasons— producing  his  letter  of  seven  sheets  against  the  Mississip- 
pi  navigation,  and  the  fisheries— What  would  the  nation  and  the 
world  have  said  of  the  American  government  and  the  American 
mission  at  Ghent  ?     After  the  responsibiUty  has   been  removed, 
and  the  peace  concluded,  it  is  very  easy  to  «« enjoy  the  good  and 
cavil  the  conditions"— but  in  this  case,  measure  still  harder  is  dealt 
out  to  the  government  and  the  majority  of  the  mission  :  after  the 
good  IS  secured,  the  cavil  is  against  conditions  not  annexed  to  it, 
but  merely  once  proposed— not  against  an  actual  stipulation,  but 
against  a  rejected  offer— against  a  possibility  extinct. 

It  IS  sufficient  for  the  justification  of  the  majority  of  the  mission 
that  itHuS  authorized,  and  that  they  believed  it  to  be  required  by 
their  instructions.     But  I  cannot  pass  over  'his  censure  upon  the 
gavernment  for  issuing  the  instructions  themselves,  without  notice. 
I-arfrom  deeming  them  blameable,   I  believe  them  to  have  been 
wise  and  meritorious.     The  instructions  not  to  surrender  the  fish- 
eries, even  at  the  hazard  of  breaking  off  the  negotiation,  Hiani- 
rested  a  sensibility  congenial  to  the  true  and  essewtial  interests  of 
the  country.     I  have  in  these  papers  furnished  proof  that  the  in- 
terest in  the  fisheries  at  stake  in  the  negotiation,. was  great  and  im- 
portant.    The  disquisitions  in  the  Western  newspapers  on  this 
subject,  dwell  largely  upon  the  state  of  politics  then  prevailing  in 
the  Eastern  section  of  the  Union.    This  is  an  invidious  topic,  and  I 
wish  to  dismiss  It  with  ihis  observation,  that  the  administration  of 
Mr.  Madison  could  not  have  honoured  itself  more  than  by  maintain, 
ing  with  inflexible  energy  against  the  enemy,  the  special  interest  of 
^at  portion  of  he  Union  which  had  been  most  opposed  to  the  war. 
But  had  that  illustrious  statesman  and  patriot  suffered  himself  on 
that  occasion  to  be  influenced  by  narrower  considerations,  it  could 
not  escape  him,  that  however  exceptionable  the  political  course  of 
theSta  e  of  Massachusetts  might  be,  the  portion  of  the  people,  most 
particularly  interested  in  these  fisheries,  neither  countenanced  nor 
supported  It.    They  had  been  the  first,  and  were  among  the  great- 


237 

w.r  »„d  of  .he  Lo„t  s,;!:  M"b*t„lA"„7r  ?  V"* 

Hacrificed  the  r  iberties  in  th..  fmh^rv  «,     ml       .    '  '*'    ^°  •»■*« 

ii«  gmutude.  „„  ituVhZTfoTZ'lZ^'^'TAtT''^'''^'' 

vernmeiit.    The  initruction  l..  .J-„.  '  "  ""  ^"^'Km  go. 

.(a.e  before  iH.«TZX:.UyZnSl"T  'nt^'"  °'*^ 

and  the  fisheries,  to  themsplvpa  Ti,:^  *^  .1  »  f.^ose  island, 
deepest  solicitude/  IWeffoPt'-  *f  L*^""  "**  °''J«"*  "''»''«**• 
theiV  pretension  that  the  Ishtgb^^^^^^  ZnT^Tir  .'" 
war,  were  uoivearied.  They  presentrd  it  to  .?«  fn  ^'^^'^f  ^^  ^^^ 
ingenuity  could  devise  It  wn,7»!!  «  *  /  u. '"  ^^'^''^  ^"^^  t**** 
iaft  obstacle  to  thrc'r/culSonTrt  t'^a^;'"  TdfoS'  -^"^  ^'^ 

the  wisdom  and  the  importance  of  the  instruction  to  h1  a        ■ 
m«8.on.  to  agree  to  a  peace  on  the  ba  ^  of  th^s^^te   bf^p'T 
war,  was  this  :  it  enabled  them  to  avoid  a  rupture  of  thlZlJ^^ 

fLt  tz.'et\^^lXo^.1"e^'^L^^lV^^^if '-"- 

0  p„.  „,  ,„  the  wrongfor  the  r„p,„re  ,  a„3  «S,r.b.tl„^'„?^^^^^^ 
c.p  e,  always  m  reserve,  we  were  enabled  to  insist  more  pe«e,er 
.nglyapon  every  particul  r  article  in  di«;nfflion.  P'"""" 

1  he  editorial  article  in  the  Argus  charges  "  llu  Stcrelart,"  »i.I. 
confounding,  id  his  strictures  (on  the  duplicate  la»m  ^  J?j- 
sions  which  took  place  before  and  afte?,  the  receSof  .h^^^^^^ 


23a 

«. 

It  is  nol  llie  Secretury,  but  Mr.  RumcII,  who  confound*  thenc 
preceding  an<J  subBcquent  diicussioni.  The  joint  despatch  of  25lh 
December,  lb  14,  and  Mr,  Russell's  separate  letter  of  the  same 
date,  say  not  a  word  of  the  discussions  prior  to  the  receipt  of  the 
new  instructions.  They  refer  eiclusively  to  the  vote  taken  on  ibo 
29th  of  November,  and  to  the  proposition  actually  made  on  the  Ist 
of  December.  Mr.  Russell's  letter  from  Paris,  confounds  together 
the  preceding  and  snb«oquent  discussions.  His  duplicate  brin|{s  in 
the  cancelled  instructions,  »s  violated  by  the  proposal  actually  made 
on  the  tirst  of  December,  and  his  publication  in  the  Boston  States- 
mnn  of  27th  June,  affirms,  that  no  tiote  ivas  taken  after  the  receipt 
of  the  new  instructions  ;  and  calls  upon  Mr.  Clay  to  confirm  the 
assertion.  It  is  hoped  that  the  discritninatit^  heads  will  &ad  that 
in  these  pages,  the  Secretary  has  been  suflBciently  explicit  in  dis-* 
tinguishiog  between  the  first  and  second  votes,  and  between  the 
discusiiions  upon  both  of  them. 

The  editorial  paper  states  that  the  nrfirle  first  proposed  by  Mr. 
Gallatin,  and  voted  by  the  maiority,  was  finally  rejected,  because 
Mr.  Bayard  changed  sides.  This  is  not  altogether  exact.  If  there 
was  any  change  of  sides,  it  was  by  Mr.  Clay.  He  brought  forward 
on  the  7th  of  November,  as  a  substitute  for  Mr.  Gallatin's  article, 
which  had  been  voted  on  the  5th,  the  very  same  proposition  which 
I  had  offered  to  take  instead'  of  Mr.  Gallatin's  article,  bejore  the 
vote  upon  it  had  been  taken,  but  which  Mr.  Clay  had  not  then  been 
prepared  to  accept.  Upon  this  new  proposal  of  Mr.  Clay,  Mr. 
Bayard  agreed, /or  the  sake  of  unanimity,  to  take  it  instead  of  Mr. 
Gallatin's  article  ;  and  so  did  I,  and  so  did  Mr.  Gallatin  himself. 
Mr.  Bayard,  of  course,  afterwards  voted,  on  the  89th  of  Novem- 
ber, for  the  proposition  which  was  actually  made  on  the  Ist  of  De- 
cember. 

The  editorial  article  of  the  Argus,  after  abating  that  the  commis- 
sioners at  Ghent  assumed  the  principle,  that  the  right  to  the  fiah- 
eries  in  British  waters,  on  our  side,  and  the  right  to  navigate  the 
Mississippi,  on  their  side,  secured  by  the  treaty  of  '83,  were  not 
abrogated  by  the  war,  but  continued  in  full  force,  without  any  new 
stipulation  at  the  peace,  observes,  that  "  the  Secretary"  calls  this 
"  the  American  side  of  the  argument,^'  and  exults,  with  many  thanks 
to  God,  that  it  has  been  sustained  through  subsequent  negotiations, 
and  particularly  in  forming  the  convention  with  Great  Britain  in 
1818.  The  writer  in  the  Argus  appears  to  be  chagrined  at  this  ex- 
altation of  the  Secretary,  and  exceedingly  anxious  to  deprive  him 
of  his  satisfaction.  But  in  the  first  place,  this  statement  of  the 
principle  assumed  by  the  commissioners  at  Ghent,  is  again  not  alto- 
gether exact.  The  principle  assumed  by  them,  was  in  these 
words,  drawn  up  by  Mr.  Clay  : 

"  In  answer  to  the  declaration  made  by  the  British  plenipoten- 
"  tiaries,  respecting  the  fisheries,  the  undersigned,  referring  to  what 
"  passed  in  the  conference  of  the  9th  AuguBt,  can  only  state,  that 
"  they  are  not  authorized  to  bring  into  diacussion  ^ny  of  the  rights 


239 

"  or  lihertiet  which  the  United  Stites  have  h«.i.«fof«-  a 

"  rehition  thereto.     IVom  their  nature  an  J  from  ^J     '  V^-  "* 
«•  racter  of  the  treaty  of  1783  bv  whi!h  /I  '  "  I't-cuhar  i  i.a- 

;;  f-ther  ,tipui«ti:^l'bee;tet  ,\'t^:jr^^^^  - 

This  principle,  thus  aasumed,  the  Secretary  .In...  ^nii  .*     d       • 

«umed,  and  has  since  been  maintained,  agains:  the  BM  ll^  7 
argumenf  nanouaced  in  the  conference  of  t^h  A  urn  7fi?/  ^' 
to  wh,ch  this  paragraph  was  the  formal  annwer.tl^  lee  ^trv  would 
not  lew  heartily  add  his  thanks  to  Mr.  Chiv  for  ha^fn?!  V  ♦?• 

interest  at  stake  upoo  it,  that  lie  tbould  miiniair.         ti..  a* 
Iwy  »ould  readily  call  it  Mr.  Clay's  side  o™  ,e   r  ,  ''',  t7", 

feaion  to  suppose  it  as  uoequivocall,  that  lntT«.      .  /  i     /"^ 
a.  he  had  made  it  his  oflic?al,  opinL'.""''/,"  Secret    ."'hiS' 

fcrarA%-tl™7;e^t:cry-5^^ 

S^S9^.i^^^-i„^;L:~££=^ 

British  right  of  navigating  the  Mississippi,  as  well  as  in  reUtion  f! 
the  fisheries,  and  on  this  inaccuracy  is  Vounded  the  Lns^re  r.h! 
Secretary  for  calling  it  the  Jlmeri/an  side  o/Larglmnt        '  '^' 

senTed  bv°T"c?r ''  T"f  '^^  F""^'*^^*'  ""'^  '«  '^  '^^s  pre- 
seniea  by  Mr.  Clay,  and  only  m  relat  on  to  the  fi«hpri..fl      u 

emphatically  the  American  side  of  the  arguZTmdstiluJ^.'^A 
JO  when  afterwards  the  British  plenipotfnrL  deoi  Id  a  Zu 
lation  in  the  treaty  that  BriUsh  subjects  should  enjoy  the  rlht^of 

o  r'tS  iet  tZ'^'  ^"'  "^"^  ''  "  '""^  ^'^^^  P-Pot  fS-oug^h 
ul..!  A  '^  ^^  American  commissioners  then  said  to  them  • 
If  you  admit  our  principle,  you  need  no  new  stipulation  to  letur^ 
to  you  this  right ;  we  are  willing,  however,  to  recoenUp  it  L  o 
article,  declaratory  of  both  rights.  If  vou  rewfi  tn  ?"  "^"^ 
foundation  to  claZ^  rl,,t  of  ul^^^^^^ 

fore,  no  pretence  for  asking  it  by  a  new  stipulation.     The  British 
plenipotentiaries  could  not  extricate  themselves  from  this  dileSma 
They  said  they  claimed  the  right  of  navigation,  asan  eoZaSo; 
ahandoning  their  line  of  boundary  to  the  MississiDDi    Id  f!rf  • 
to  the  49th  parallel  of  latitude.^  We  offered  tTe'm'  to  lea' e^J? 
boundary  as  ,t  was~which  they  finally  accepted      Throughout 
the  whole  discussion,  the  principle  assumed  by  the  AmerS  com 
missioners,  was  the  American  side  of  th,  argLent?  ^  "' 

It  Tva«  still  80  in  the  negotiations  after  the  peace  which  terminated 


840 

in  the  convention  of  1818,  and  remains  the  American  side  of  the 
ai|;ument  to  this  day.  When,  in  the  summer  of  1816,  British  arm- 
ed cruisers  warned  all  American  fishing  vessels  on  the  coast  of  No- 
va-Scotia to  a  distance  of  sixty  miles  from  the  shores,  they  very 
eignificantly  proved  what  the  British  government  had  meant  by  their 
side  of  ihe  argument,  and  in  entering  upon  the  negotiation,  imme- 
diately flftprwards  and  inconsequence  of  that  event,  the  Secretary 
may  be  allowed  tosjfeak  with  confidence  when  he  says,  that  had  it 
not  been  for  the  principle  assumed  by  the  commissioners  at  Ghent, 
he  could  not  have  taken  the  first  step  in  it—he  could  not  have  al- 
leged a  cause  of  complaint — sixty  miles  was  largely  within  the  ex- 
tent of  exclusive  British  jurisdiction,  as  to  those  fisheries,  if  our  lir 
berties  in  them  had  been  abrogated  by  the  war  ;  and  the  American 
minister  in  England  would  have  had  no  more  right  to  complain  of 
this  warning,  or  of  any  exclusion  by  British  cruisers  of  American 
fishing  vessels  from  any  part  of  the  Newfoundland  fisheries,  than  of 
the  seizure  of  an  American  vessel  in  the  port  of  Liverpool  for  a 
manifest  violation  of  the  British  revenue  laws. 

It  was  upon  the  rights  and  liberties,  in  these  fisheries,  as  recog- 
nised in  the  treaty  of  1783,  as  unimpaired  by  the  war  of  1812,  and 
as  unabrogated,  although  no  stipulation  to  confirm  them  had  been 
inserted  in  the  treaty  of  Ghent,  that  the  American  minister  in  Lon- 
don did  complain  of  this  wai*ning  and  interdiction  of  the  American 
lishermen.     He  recurred  immediately  to  the  principle  asserted  by 
the  American  commissioners  at  Ghent,  at  the  proposal  of  Mr.  Clay, 
and  consigned  in  their  note  of  10th  November,  1814.     On  that  he 
rested  the  continued  claim  of  the  United  States  to  all  the  rights  and 
liberties  in  the  fisheries,  recognised  in  the  treaty  of  1783,  and  en- 
tered upon  a  full  discussion  of  the  question  with  the  British  go- 
vernment.    The  result  of  that  discussion,  which  was  continued  in 
the  negotiation  of  the  convention  of  1818,  appears  in  the  first  arti- 
cle of  that  convention.  The  editorial  article  in  the  Argus,  says  that 
this  convention  restricts  our  fishing  liberties,  and  says  not  a  word 
about  the  navigation  of  the  Mississippi.     The  convention  restricts 
the  liberties  in  some  small  degree;  but  it  enlarges  them  probably 
in  a  degree  not  less  useful.     It  has  secured  thawhole  coast  fishery 
of  every  part  of  the  British  dominions,  except  within  three  marin** 
miles  of  the  shores,  with  the  liberty  of  using  all  the  harbours, 
for  shelter,  for  repairing  damages,  and  for  obtaining  wood  and  wa- 
ter.    It  has  secured  the  full  participation  in  the  Labrador  fishery  • 
the  most  important  part  of  the  whole,  and  that  of  which  it  was  at 
Ghent  peculiarly  the  intention  of  the   British  government  at  all 
events  to  deprive  us.     This  fishery  cannot  be  prosecuted  without 
the  use  of  the  neighbouring  shores,  for  drying  and  curing  the  f.sh  : 
it  is  chiefly  carried  on  in  boats,  close  into  "the  shores,  and  the  loss 
of  It,  even  if  the  rest  had  been  left  unaffected  by  the  same  princi- 
ple, would  have  been  a  loss  of  more  than  half  of  the  whole  interest. 
The  convention  has  also  secured  to  us  the  right  of  dryk^  and 
curing  fish  on  a  part  of  the  island  of  Newfoundland,  which  had  not 


,^ 


^^ 


241.  ■     ■  -' 

b«en  enjoyed  under  the  treaty  of  1783 :  it  has  narrowed  down  the 
preteasions  of  exclusive  territorial  jurisdiction  with  reference  to 
those  fisheries  to  three  marine  miles  from  the  shores.  Upon  the 
whole    I  consider  this  interest  as  secured  by  the  conveSon  of 

nil'Zl  r"""  •'  «dr«°t«g««"«  «»  it  had  been  by  the  treaty  of 
178J  ;  we  have  gamed  by  ,t,  even  of  fishing  liberties,  perbaw  as 

E>  fif  n  ^''^■^  '.*''.*  •  ''"*  '^  ""*•  ^«  have  gained  pr^cUcalMh^ 
benefit  of  the  principle,  that  our  liberties  in  the  fisheries  rSised 

^V^l  'Tk'^  °^  ''^^'  ""^'^  not  abrogated  by  the  wTof  fs^f 'Tf 
they  had  been  we  never  should  have  obtained,  without  a  new  war 
^ny  portion  of  them  again.     The  error  of  the  editorial  artTcle  in 
he  Argus,  is  in  putting  out  of  sight  the  difference  between  a  con 
tested  and  an  uncootested  right.   After  the  conclusion  of  the  peace 
of  Ghent,  according  to  the  American  side  of  the  argument  Id  ht 
virtue  ot  the  principle,  assumed  at  the  proposal  of  Mr  Clav  thi 
rights  and  liberties  ot  the  people  of  tL  Suited  Stli  Tthes: 
fisheries  remained  in  full  force,  as  they  had  been  recoen"«ed  bv 
InH  Tt^i  ^^^^'    Accordingto  the  BHtish  side  of  the  f ?g,fmenf 
and  o  the  doctrine  of  Mr.  Russell's  Letter  from  Paris,  they  were 
totally  abrogated  by  the  war.     The  letter  says,  in  ex^resMeTms 
hat  he  hbertyv^a.  "entirely  at  an  end  ,"'  and  that  we  we  eTft 
'^without  any  tule  to  it  whatsoever-  If  this  was  he  real  doctrine  of 
he  rmnority  of  the  American  mission  at  Ghent,  has  not  the  W 
tnry  reason  to  exult,  and  to  give  many  thanks  to  God,  that  inS 
ot  avowing  .t,  they  professed  directly  the  contrary       That  m^ 
Clay  himself  proposed  to  the  mission,  and  the  mission  at  his  pro 
posal  adopted  the  opposite  principle,  the  American  side  ofthFal 
gmnent      After  the  peace  of  Ghent,  the  right  of  the  peoil  of  th. 
Unued  States  to  the  fishing  liberties  ^as  pfrfect,  h.tS 2s  c^L^t- 
l,L  ^u'lu"'^  ^  ^"'**'^  '"^'  'f  '^'  ^^S^ndnt,  and  what  we  bate 
gamed  by  the  convention  of  1818,  has  been  an  adjustmenrof  that 
contest,  preserving  essentially  the  whole  interest  that  was  in  dif 
P« te.     The  first  article  of  the  convention  is  upon  its  flco  the  ad" 
jnstment  of  a  contested  question.     The  documents  of  the  neiotu" 
tion  prove  how  xX  was  adjusted,  and  show  that  we  obtained  the  ad 
justment  by  maintaining  our  principle.  On  the  principle  of  the  let" 
ter  from  Pans  there  was  no  liberty  to  maintair^  no  rLht  to  aTser 
no  contest  to  adjust :  the  liberty  wlsgone,  irretrievaSy  lost         * 
1  he  editorial  article  says,  that  "  if  the  British  were  to  claim  fhp 
right  0  navigate  the  Mississippi  to-morrow,  the  Secretary  wolw 
be  obliged  to  grant  their  claim  valid  or  contradict  his  ownZ^uri te 
principle !  "     The  double  notes  of  admiration  annexed  to  th« 
closing  period  of  the  editorial  article,  indicate  a  long  cher'^hed  and 
intense  desire  to  fasten  upon  the  Secretary,  in  spitf  of  a  I  that  he 
can  say,  the  deep  crimination  of  the  dreadful  consequence,  to 
which  his  favourite  pr.nc.ple  might  yet  lead.  Mr.  Russe  I.  too  has 
LXo  it'is  thi.^''""  '"P'  ''  '''"'''  '^^•"^^  ^^eSecretar;:'  My' 


242 

that  the  principle  alludvjd  to  in  its  application  to  our  fishint  li- 
berties, IS  ^y  favourite  principle,  I  admit,  knowing  as  I  do,  that  it 
has  been  the  means  of  saving  them  from  total  extinction.  That  it 
M  my  ffwn  prmcipic,  I  have  perhaps  not  more  the  right  to  say  thao 
that  It  was  Mr.  Clay's  own  principle :  for  it  was  at  his  proposal 
that  It  was  assumed  by  the  American  mission  at  Ghent,  and  the  pa- 
ragraph by  which  it  was  assumed,  was  drawn  up  by  him.  For  aU 
possible  consequences  in  relation  to  the  British  right  of  navigating 
the  Mwftssippi,  which  may  flow  from  the  assumption  of  this  prin- 
ciple, Mr.  Clay  so  far  as  official  acta  and  signatures  can  pledge  i« 
•s  responsible  as  I  am. 

But  the  truth  is,  that  the  principle  can  no  longer  be  applied  to 
the  British  right  of  navigating  the  Mississippi,  because  they  them- 
selves have  disclaimed  it,  and  thereby  renounced  the  right  to  the 
claim.  The  right  once  disclaimed,  cannot  again  be  resumed.  It 
could  not  be  resumed  even  after  a  tacit  renunciation — a  disclaimer 
is  still  more.  It  was  precisely  because  acquiescence  on  our  part 
in  the  principle  asserted  by  the  British  plenipotentiaries,  in  their 
notification  of  8th  August,  would  have  been  a  s-jrrender  and  tacit 
renunciation  of  the  fishing  liberties,  that  I  deemed  the  counterno- 
tification  on  our  part,  or  a  new  article  indispensable.  But  in  assert- 
ing a  t>riRciple  just  and  sound  in  itself,  in  defence  of  our  own  liber- 
ties, we  are  in  nowise  bound  to  force  it  upon  Q?eat  Britain,  in  support 
of  any  right  of  hers  ;  and  as  she  has  chosen  to  consider  her  right 
to  navigate  the  Mississippi  by  virtue  of  the  8th  article  of  the  treaty 
of  1783,  as  abrogated  by  the  war,  we  are  neither  bound  to  obtrude 
«pon  her  that  which  she  disclaims,  nor  to  admit  the  claim,  shouhl 
she  hereafter  be  disposed  to  retract  the  principle. 

But  this  is  not  all ;  the  editorial  article  asks  "  how  can  the  Se-  ^ 
cretary  consistently  say  that  the  British  abandoned  this  right  in  the 
convention  of  1818,  when  not  a  word  is  said  about  it  in  that  com- 
pact ?"  It  is  precisely  because  not  a  word  is  said  in  the  compact  about 
if,  that  the  British  have  abandoned  the  right.  By  the  second  arti- 
cle of  the  convention  a  new  boundary  line  is  stipulated,  along  the 
49th  parallel  of  latitude,  which  of  coui-se  cuts  them  off  from  the 
line  to  which  they  were  before  entitled  to  the  Mississippi.  Dis- 
claiming the  right  secured  to  them  by  the  8th  article  of  the  treaty 
of  1783,  the  on/y  ground  upon  which  they  still  claimed  the  right, 
was  by  virtue  of  the  line  which  brought  them  in  contact  with  the 
river.  At  the  negotiations  of  1807,  and  at  Ghent,  they  declined 
agreeing  to  the  new  line,  unless  with  a  reservation  of  the  right  to 
navigate  the  river,  and  of  access  to  it,  through  our  territories. 
They  demanded  the  same  thing  at  the  negotiation  of  the  convention 
of  1818,  and  presented  an  article  to  that  effect.  But  they  finally 
agreed  to  the  new  boundary  line,  without  the  reservation,  and 
thereby  abandoned  their  last  claim  to  the  right  of  navigating  the 
river. 

The  editorial  article  in  the  Argus,  is  sufficient  to  justify  Mr. 
Clay  for  his  assent  to,  and  concarrence  with,  all  the  measures 


248 

Jgreed  upon  by  the  majority  of  the  Ghent  mission.    His  serrice* 

to  the  nation  are  sufficiently  distinguished  to  enablp  him  ♦<!! 

"'.th  the  assistance  of  nnjuJt  aspefsions  upon  o?hir»       '"  '^"^"'"* 


t  / 
//.  Mr.  Floyd's  Letter. 

From  the  Richmond  Enquirer  of  27th  August,  182«.     " 
To  tU  Editors  of  the  Enquirer  : 

^"^"^■'^''■.  VlROINIA,  AUOMT  14,  1842; 

myself  alone,  I  have  bien  content  T/resti^^Sms^to^ 
he  decision  of  those  with  whom  I  act^etT/ejXa  Z"  ^^^^^^^^ 
the  newspapers,  or  reporters  to  newspapers,  either  miZl.!     I 
me  misrepresent  me,  or  do  not  hear  me.  "wunderstand 

In  the  commencement  of  this  affair,  I  was  not  a  HhIo  «,      •    ^ 
to  see  the  editorial  remarks  of  the  WeekTy  Relter  „  cZfr ^ 
Je  publication  of  the  President's  message  wShfiiM'°"''rt"« 
Russell  and  Mr.  Adams,  subjecting  mo  t^  rmput.UonJn^^ 
tioneering  views"  and  the  "  ietting^,n"  this  busine  r  mv  .    *'•''" 
was  not  lessened  to  find  any  thing  in  my  crrsriiabi;?/'"^^^^^ 
putations,  as  I  have  always  felt  the  mZ  perfect  ronfiw     *""''  T 
correctness  of  my  course':  though  I  have^torhi.h  1  Tn' '°  ^^"t 
he  correctness  and  integritv  of  the  WeeklJ  R?le/tS'h.°r    ^^ 
these  remarks  were  intended  for  any  other  purp?ethl„  ^f"^* 
an  honest  opinion  of  the  transaction  as  it  appeared  to'hJm        ^"^ 

With  these  feelings,  as  soon  as  I  recovered  fromVL  „ 
onder  which  I  was  labouring- when  the  Reg^te^  w  s  r.?;""^/ 
wrote  a  statement  of  the  whole  matter,  to  thfeditoT  of  ZT''* ' 
whose  independent  republican  course  has  imnrJl!L  ^''^^PfPe^ 
most  favourable  sentiments  of  his  re'Stud:  Zabi  uj  Z^T^l^ 
«ng  there  would  be  an  end  to  the  affair  ery  soon  S  Vh  /m'"'^' 
portunities  might  offer  elsewhere,  of  doinTmyself  iustil.  f '''  T 
cd  to  the  suggestion  of  a  friend  in  withhddS  C  So  I^l^'t 

XiTiVcrioVk^r^^^ 

the  adoption  of  Mr.  FuLV,  re^lZ^llltlZ'l^^^^^^  l^l 


m 

i%e  President  for  the  papers;  which  now  appears  to  have  bl^n 
ilone  at  the  instance  of  Mr.  Adanas  himself. 

There  is  certainly  something  very  singular  in  this  affair,  tV  t 
Mr.  Adams,  who  has  laboured  with  so  much  zeal  and  perseverance, 
to  impress  the  nation  with  the  belief  that  Mr.  Russell  is  not  correct 
in  his  statements,  should,  nevertheless,  as  zealously  adhere  to  de- 
clarations eiiuully  injurious,  and  unfounded  as  it  regards  myself; 
to  the  end,  it  is  presumed,  to  justify  his  own  conduct  in  procuring 
Mr.  Fuller  to  make  the  call  which  I  had  desisted  from,  and  which 
it  seems  was  so  desirable  to  him  as  a  mean  of  getting  into  the  news- 
papers,— this,  too.  after  Mr.  Kussell  had  said  he  knew  nothing  of 
liiy  intention  of  making  the  request  I  did  make. 
.  Mr.  Adams,  J  hail  believed,  was  too  well  acquainted  with  eti- 
quette, to  leave  his  lawful  game,  to  send  a  shaft  at  me,  however  he 
might  feel  towards  iue  ;  but,  since  he  has  thought  proper  to  do  so, 
I  mrst  defend  myself. 

Whatever  a  Secretary  shall  say  of  me,  I  think  it  but  right,  to 
hold  him  responsible  ;  nor  will  I  consent  that  he  shall  ransack  bis 
department  to  find  a  clerk  to  prop  his  desires  by  a  certificate.  So 
far  as  it  regards  myself,  I  must  protest  against  the  certificates  of 
clerks,  who  depend  for  their  daily  bread,  upon  the  capricious 
smiles  of  a  Secretary  of  a  Department.  1  do  not  wish  to  be  un- 
derstood as  making  any  remark  upon  Mr.  Adams's  certifying  clerks. 
It  is  possible  they  may  be  respectable,  I  know  nothing  of  t'lem; 
nor,  can  I,  consistent  with  my  own  self-approbation,  know  any  body 
but  Mr.  Adams,  who  1  presume,  having  reliance,  and  regardless  of 
feelings  or  opinions,  boldly  and  confidently,  reiterates  in  his  re- 
joinder, that  Mr.  Russell  procured  me,  to  subserve  his  purposes, 
and  make  the  call  in  the  House  which  I  did  make ;  which  assertion, 
I  unequivocally  pronounce  to  be  utterly  destitute  of  that  verity 
which  ought  always  to  characterize  assertions  made  to  the  public. 

The  story  is  briefly  this  : 

Last  winter  was  a  year,  at  my  lodgings,  in  conversation  with 
some  of  my  friends,  we  were  discussing  the  advantages  of  the  oc- 
cupation of  the  Oregon,  or  Columbia  river,  the  value  of  the  fur 
trade  of  our  western  rivers,  the  wealth  to  be' derived  from  that 
trade  in  the  Canton  market,  and  the  practicability  of  supplying  the 
valley  of  the  Mississippi  with  the  manufactures  of  China  by  that 
route  ;  when  one  gentleman  observ,ed,  that  the  Mississippi  had 
been  discussed  at  Giient,  and  from  the  character  of  the  gentlemen 
engaged  in  it,  there  was  a  strong  probability,  that,  if  I  had  that  cor- 
respondence, I  would  obtain  something,  which  might  be  useful  to 
me.  I  had  then  presented  to  the  House,  my  report  upon  the  occu- 
pation of  that  river,  and  would  have  to  make  an  exposition  of  the 
bill  when  it  came  up  for  discussiuti.  1  instantly  determined  to  make 
the  call,  as  the  proper  mode  of  getting  the  papers  :  but,  I  soon 
found  my  bill  for  its  occupation,  could  not,  from  the  place  it  held 
in  the  orders  of  the  day,  be  acted  upon  that  session  :  I  then  deter- 
niincd  to  postpone  tlie  call  until  the  next  session.    Accordingly,  on 


!^45 

dWr^Jli^To/*^'*  f*^!'  commenting  upon  this,  that,  "it  #ill  be 

tTZro(th^GS!n^V7r'''^  b*d  intervened,  between  the 
report  ot  the  Ghent  treaty  documents  to  the  Hoase  and  this  se. 
cood  call,  which  Mr.  Rusaell  has  admitted  v.a.  made  U  hia  s^ffi^^^^^^ 

on  the  23d  of  February,  and  not  dhly  ordered  to  lie  on  the  tuble 

ZrtLT'f  ^"'  •'•^^'^'l^  ''"^''^^  '«  *'  /'^^«^'  I  had  not  an  op^ 
portun.ty  of  examming  them  until  they  were  printed,  which  3d 

of  course  requ.re  some  days.    But  in  that  time,  I  'had  recTed 

know ^f S  '^  ^a'^  "^'"'Tl  "^  "y  ^«°^"y'  «°d  Mr.  Adams Tdes 
know  I  obtained  leave  of  ab8enc6  for  the  remainder  of  the  ees- 
sion   believing  it  not  possible  for  me  to  return. 

I  left  this  city,  I  believe,  about  the  13th  of  March^  but  mv  fami- 
^  being  restored  to  health,  I  returned  to  WashiS.  and  «r  vS 

and  on  the  1 8th  submitted  the  second  resoiuUon,  calling  specifically 

tIv^''    'r  f "^^  '  **»"*  --esolution  was  adopted  on  the  iS 

•er??  ^nnM  **V«"i  ^^^^"J.'^*"  ^^>  that,  on  examining  the  pa- 

pers,  I  could  no   hnd  any  thing  I  wanted,  though  I  did  perceive 

ZT^f'  ^^'f}f  '""'•''  ^''}^,^  '^'  ^^th  of  December,  from  Ghent! 
dot  «n '»?h '^*'* '"  '"'I?;?  ^""^'""^  °»t"™»y  <^«>"«»«ded  he  had 
done  so  as  he  was  a  public  man,  and  in  the  discharge,  as  I  thought 

i'  '^  w  l*°  '"^'  ^^^^'^'^S  ^^^  ^^'"«  of  the  Mississippi  rirer! 
I  will  take  no  part  in  the  controversy  between  Mf.  Russell  and 

^n.  tt'n;'h"°'  ""^""^  *  ""r  ^""^^  W""«°'  had  not  Mr.  Adams 
gone  out  of  his  way.  in  endeavouring  to  place  me  in  an  attitude 
which  he  must  know,  nothing  but  his  injustice  could  havreSfed 

♦ki  v";'*'T/  f^,.^"<=h  surprised  at  the  memory  of  the  friend  of 
the  National  Intelligencer,  as  at  all  the  rest  of  this  affair  .he  has 
eertainly  reported  to  that  paper  as  far  as  he  went  »rbstanfwiy'' 

^ori  ?J/'t  ^J  '"  '^'^  '^'^''^  '  ''"^  **»«  «'^rP"^«  "» that  hK. 
TrIitl'Ji  ?^  P'^^^'f  P°r^  ''^^'^  my  justification  begins.    I 

ihli  tn  J  "Vl"!  fu'^!.""''  •"«''«  *»»«"«  '«'»"ts.  and  nearly  in 
these  words :  That  I  had  made  the  previous  calls,  and  had  not  re- 
newed  it,  as  the  letter  wanted  had  been  .pecificklly  desired.^d 

tJ-nf^''\u^''l^^  '^""^  the  wishes  of  the  House,  and  mirfit 
send  It  If  ha  thought  proper,  as  he  was  the  judge  of  the  proprifty 

iouIdTl'  h^  "1*^*5?'  «"°^*'"  resolotioMo  the  same  ffi 
woS  d  nrn5r'""r«  ^J^^  *''«°'*y  °^  ^^^  "°««« ?  «°d  if  the  papers 
roffir!?nr  u-'"°*^"'*^*^*"«  '*"*'  »"  ^'oo'^'  between  me?  high 
Le™  seem.H  P""'^.^^*?'"'  ^^ich  the  President,  who  had  the  pa- 
pere  seemed  to  insinuate,  I  would  not  be  the  means  of  producL 
*Kat4,v.l.  What  I  wanted  was  the  information,  which  I  .upJoS 


m 

'paper«  (o  coatain  relatire  to  the  value  of  the  M Uiiisippi,  whidb 
jvould,  according  to  my  view  of  the  occupation  of  the  Columbhi 
river,  show  the  value  of  the  trade  to  flow  in  that  channel,  which 
was  to  connect  those  two  great  rivers  ;  and  that  there  could  not 
he  any  thing  difficult  to  comprehend  in  that.  That  if  the  President 
would  tell  the  House  such  consequences  would  flow  from  the  com- 
munication, and  at  the  same  time  state,  that  copies  of  the  papers 
would  be  furnished  to  any  gentlemiin  at  the  Department  of  State, 
who  might  desire  them,  was  a  thing  left  for  him  to  justify  and  to  re- 
concile :  I  wished  myself  to  be  correct,  and  said  this  for  my  owa 
justification,  and  to  sliow  my  owa  consistency,  and  not  the  Presi- 
dent's. 

I  will  close  these  observations  by  observing  to  you,  that  I  have 
seen  in  your  paper  a  few  days  ago,  the  remarks  contained  in  a 
Charleston  Journal.  I  cannot  divine  how  the  writer  knew  1  had 
made  a  motion  to  refer  the  President's  communication  to  my  com- 
mittee, before  it  was  read.  I  conclude,  though,  it  is  much  after 
♦he  disinterestedness  of  the  times,  and  that  a  diplomatic  mission  to 
some  of  the  new  republics,  may  be  the  hoped  reward  of  the  hon- 
est exertions  of  the  writer.  How  was  that  fact  ascertJHned  ?  there 
M  no  record  showing  whether  the  motion  was  made  before  the  pa- 
pers were  read  or  not — this  minute  fact  is  known  to  the  writer  so 
distant  from  Washington,  who  does  not  ever>  know  the  part  of  the 
country  I  live  in-,  as  he  sUites  me  to  be  a  member  from  the  west- 
it  may  be  honest  ignorance— I-  believe,  though  I  did  make  the  mo- 
tion to  refer  the  papers,  as  soon  as  it  was  asccrtuined  what  the 
papers  related  to.  This  is  every  day's  practice,  and  I  have  now 
papers  referred  to  my  committee  which  the  House  never  saw, 
which  contained  information  I  had  sought  through  the  medium  of 
the  House,  as  I  had  done  that,  which  was  to  be  used  when  my  bill 
was  called  up.  I  will  sa/more.  that  if  1,  by  any  proper  act, 
could  have  prevented  this  affair,  that  I  would  have  done  so  ;  nor 
will  1,  either  in  public  or  in  private,  refrain  from  commenting  upon 
the  public  conduct  and  opinions  of  any  public  man,  who  may  be 
thought,  or  may  tWnk  himself  entitled  to  office.  My  opposition 
Jias  always  been  political,  and  directed  by  the  ideas  I  entertain  of 
the  power  which  gentlemen  may  think  themselves  entitled  to  ex- 
ercise, under  the  constitution  of  the  United  States.  Hook  upon  that 
constitution  ns  containing  expressed  grants  of  power,aad  cannot  ap- 
prove any  opposite  opinion. 

'  1,  as  a  public  man,  am  willing  to  be  judged  by  this  test,  and  when 
i,  or  others,  cannot  dgfend  their  opinion,  injustice  to  the  country, 
they  r  ■•  '  t  to  retire.  In  my  public  capacity  I  called  upon  the  ex- 
ecuti*  '.anch  of  the  government  for  papers  expressly  relating  to 
a  national  transaction,  and  for  public  use  ;  and  if  evil  has  resulted, 
or  private  letters  been  divulged,  it  cannot  attach  to  me. 
I  am,  sirs,  with  great  respect,  your  obedient  servant, 

JOHN  FLOYD, 


.i*:i4,.li£ 


lH^'  »-  ..'^  ^  ...^j.,-^|*y 


^47 

'  ill    Mr.  rytir^  tSmr. 


i'rtfm  tb«  Boston  Patriot  of  ith  September,  1822. 

^    .    „ .  BoiToif,  3d  SarTUMBBR,  1823. 

Vb  <A«  £Arar*  o/-  <Ae  Boston  Patriot : 

Gentlemen  :  Having  seen  in  thj  Richmond  Enquirer  of  the  27th 
of  August,  n  letter  from  Mr.  Floyd,  of  Virginia,  in  which  he  upeaks 
of  the  conduct  of  Mr.  Adams  "  in  procuring  Mr.  Fuller  to  make 
the  call"  for  Mr.  HusseirB  letter  and  Mr.  A.'s  remarks  in  rolatiou 
to  the  Ghent  treaty,  I  am  induced,  with  great  reluctance,  to  ad- 
dress you  a  line  on  that  sulyect,  for  publication.  My  great  aversion 
to  appear,  without  evident  neeewity,  in  the  tiewspupert,  alona 
withheld  me  from  this  course,  on  observing  that  Mr.  li<issell,in  his 
letter  re-published  in  the  Nalional  Intelligencer  on  the  ad  of  July, 
*ays  Mr.  Adams  '•  sought  for  a  member  who  would  coniant  to  make 
the  call." — "To  one  member  from  Massachusetts,  ut  least,  he  lutd 
applied  in  vai«,  before  he  finally  succeeded  in  his  object." 

It  was  perfectly  obvious,  on  being  informed  by  the  President's 
message  of  the  4th  of  May,  that  Mr.  Russell's  private  letter  on  the 
Ohwit  negotiation  was  to  he  seen  by  gentleinen  who  might  coll  at 
the  Department  of  State,  that  it  would  be  immediately  uubiisbed  in 
the  newspapers.  The  messflge  also  stated  the  wish  ot  the  Secre- 
tary of  State,  to  have  the  letter  communicated  to  Congress,  toge- 
ther vHth  his  remarks,  explanatory  of  its  contents.  This  course 
appeared  to  me  perfectly  fair  ;  and  in  supporting  the  motion,  which 
I  had  submitted  for  the  purpose,  1  assigned,  among  other  reasons, 
the  palpable  unfairness  of  making  the  letter  public,  while  the  an- 
swer was  suppressed.  Several  members,  with  whom  I  conversed, 
concurred  with  me  entirely  in  the  propriety  of  having  both  commu- 
nicated together.  It  seems  to  me,  therefore,  very  singular,  that 
any  censure  could  be  attached  to  Mr.  Adams,  even  had  he,  as  al- 
leged, requested  or  '•  procured"  the  call.  I  do,  however, explicitly 
declare,  that  neither  Mr.  Mams,  nor  any  other  person,  either  re- 
quested or  *' procured'*  me  to  move  the  call,  or  to  do  any  thing  in  re- 
lation to  it. 

I  regretted  the  absence  of  Mr.  Russell,  and  did  not  know  of  his 
intention  to  depart  from  Washington,  until  he  was  actually  gone  ; 
had  he  been  present,  however,  it  did  not  occur  ♦)  me,  that  he  could 
have  any  objection  to  the  resolution,  and  it  would  not  have  pre- 
vented the  support  I  gave  it. 

Mr.  Floyd's  remarks,  in  opposition  to  the  resolution,  appear  to 
me  more  accurately  stated  in  his  letter,  than  as  reported  in  the  In- 
elligencer;  but  the  addition  which  he  has  supplied,  seems  not  ma- 
terial, in  my  view,  for  his  ••  justification." 

Permit  me  to  add  that  while  I  regret  extremely  the  unfortunate 
occasion,  I  nevertheless  rejoice  in  perceiving  that  it  has  produced 

L>tni  t'h    r*"*'  ^^  *»««  ""PO'-t  «nd  bearing;  of  several  important 
wnts,  which  required  only  to  be  understood,  to  allay  the  jealousies 

nf  "o«r?'  ^"'  *  *  v"* '?  ""^"""^^d,  between  the  differen   secS 
of  our  country.     Tour's  respectfully, 

T.  FULLER. 


'ml  • 
ill 


^m 


tF, 


From  the  National  Intelligencer  of  3ist  August,  1822. 


.     To  the  Editors  of  the  Ifational  Intelligeijcer. 
In  U)«  Richmond  Enquirer  of  the  27th  Auirust   lfl99    tu^^^  ,. 
puW.8hed  a  letter  fron,  \r.  Floyd  tp  the  edttofs  of  thTpapeTi« 

tK^ertio^'^K'""''*  *•**?  ^"".V*  '^'  "'*'^»«'  which  he  didTak7! 
tT?«  nfT^  °"  -^  urreauivocally  pronounces  to  be  utterly  desti 

ae«!l^^h!rfK  *"•  '*^ri!'*  Rejoinder,  thus  referred  to,  must  have 
seep  that  the  name  of  Mr.  Floyd  is  not  so  much  as  mentioned  in  it 

Sv  tdi,^''Jr'"^5*"°lf  /'If  r^*"  °^*^«  Resolution.  onlvTa 
•ay,  that  when  Mr,  Russell  left  the  City,  on  the  fifth  of  May  I  ore, 
sumed  he  knew  that  the  call  for  the  letter  would  not  beYenewed 
by  h.m.  I  have  said  that  the  call  of  the  House  of  the  1 9th  of 
Apr.1,  was  made  at  Mr.  Russell's  instance  or  suggestion  and  that  it 
was  ppocured  by  him.    My  vouchers   for  this  assertion,  are    he 

frJtr.?T°l.f!?"-  *^"'''""  ''•"««'^  *»  ^''  B''«"t  «nd  Mr.  Bailey! 
as  attested  iq  their  statements-trom  the  latter  of  which  it  appeara 

5?'^  S*  ^^f  *^''  ^'-  ^""«"'«  Jitter  was  procured  by  him  na£er 

th«t  if  h  '  r^'^**  ^^'  ^"''*"  '^^^""«^  «^^*n«.  t«"'ng  Mr.  FloVd 
that  If  he  wished  a  copy,  be  must  move  a  call  for  it.  Mr  Flovd 
has  not  denied  this  to  be  fact.  If  he  did  deny  it,  the  question  wouW 
be  upon  the  verity  of  Mr.  Russell's  assertL  Tnd^"„Tof  S^ 

Tde  tJiheTiSi^^**  ^"«J^'  "I^^y"  *°  characterize  asserTon^ 
precei?  S T  fev^  '"  t  ^f fP'^  »'»P':««ed  as  I  could  be  by  the 
precept  01  Mr.  Hoyd,  or  by  his  example.  ♦. 

W..hu,gtP,.  30th  A„gu«,  ,833.  '"^""^  ^^'^^^  A^^S, 


V.   Further  Remarks  upon  Mr.  Floyd's  Letter  to  the  Edifor,  of  the 

Richmond  Enquirer. 

The  impartial  editors  of  the  Richmond  Enquirer,  in  repubfish- 
,ng  this  letter  of  mine  to  the  editors  of  the  National  iLuKcer 
r2>elling  the  charge  of  Mr.  Floyd,  annexed  to  it  a  note  o^S 
Skiff's ^Pi'*''i"''^°\P°'"<*'*  °"*  •"  °»y  letter  between  the 

wh  rrl^/*/J''^'''f '^  '^^  "^!'  *^^»»»«  "°»»e  of  Representative, 
which  resulted  from  it,  a  nice  distinction. 

u  jr**''f?**^"f  ?°  r^  *•'"  '■  ^^'  ^'°y*'  had  accused  me  of  having, 
regardless  of  feehnp  or  opinions,  boldly  and  confidently  reiterati 

«  ri  '"^^Z  Rejoinder,  that  Mr.  Russell  bad  procured  him.  CMr, 
Floyd,)  to  sqbserve  h,8  (Mr.  Russell's,)  p«r;,o,«,  and  make  the 
call  10  the  House  which  he  did  make."    And  upon  thisaccusa. 


-'Tijir'^w'- 


If  1  had  «8,ertedf  Zod/v   ofMrZ^fZ'1  "f  'j;"^' 
puted  to  me,  he  woufdhlTJhJ''  ^'''^'''  **•"'  ^'''c*>  *>«  >ti^' 

sertioD.  and  oderUs  truth     hi^K*"**"  '°.*»'^*  ««'*"^«  «*  the  5 
House,  adopted  upon  hu^l.:^„!'  ^^^  •"-«'-«°'>  that  the  call  of  tS» 

neither  ia^^Z  tha?  Mr  Flovd  hnTrnT?'**'  ^^  ^'-  '^'"••'H' 
Mr.  Ru^eJl's  purposes    n^^^^  h.maejf  ,„b,„„^„^  ^^ 

justly  take  offeEce.^  The  factSih7did  1 "?  *'''  '^'^y**  '^'^"M 
call  for  Mr.  Russell's  letter  had  bpL  ^aTu'-  '''""*•>''  **»«»  *»>« 
w  not  denied  by  Mr  Flovd  anj  .s  trl  ?.  "  T**  '"gK^^'-'OD, 
to  me  an  assertfon  that  iTad^ot  made  Iha  m7V."'^'^  'fT^"* 
hii-aself  ground  to  stand  imnn  iJ^T  ■  ■  *  '^y**  '^o"''!  make 
truth  upSn  my  asseS    ^    ' '"  '^''''^'"^  '"J"^'*^«  ^°  '^''°'  ««d  un, 

^rtnire^i^rr^rrr'^^h'^"^^^^  ^-"-^  ^- 

thought,  that  Mr.  Flofd  ac^edl  .1,     '      ' ,    T^^^^  '"^^''t.  nor 
Russln/   I  knew  hirdXTeror;^  oCMr, 

were  applicable  to  «»«  thnp/.,  *    *  "*•'  *°' '«''  as  the» 

impote.  was,  the  m>k  ,,Zin  <4W«„     IM'  .'L"""  'r'""' «» 

less  reason  couldVehaTe/or^;^:^  "*'» 

cause  to  use  the  term,  as  applicable  to  Mr  Fuller  than  it  i^" 
apphcab  e  to  him.  His  rail  nf  lOfk  a  ."'"'''  ^"^'^  *  "*^»  «■ 
gested  to  himT  Mr    RuLlf     %^^lt^'  d"*  *?!'"  directly  gug- 


1 


i50 

Miret)  by  any  other  member :  but  I  neither  nsfced  Mr.  Ftiller  not 
any  other  member  to  renew  it.  1  did  not,  therefore,  procure  Mr. 
Fuller,  to  renew  the  call  and  if  I  can  be  said  to  have  procured  the 
«pll,  moved  for  by  him,  it  was  only  by  the  expression  of  a  general 
wiahto  him,  as  to  many  others,  that  the  papers  should  be  commu- 
nicated to  the  HoNse  ;  a  wisb  which  had  already  been  made  known 
to  (he  House  by  the  me|i«age  of  the  President. 

Nothing  offensive  to  Mr.  Floyd  was  intended  by  me  in  my  Re- 
joinder,  nor,  if  he  had  been  governed  by  his  own  maxim,  could  he 
have  seen  any  thing  offensive  to  him  in  it.  Rut  there  is  one  thing, 
at  least,  in  which  there  is,  between  Mr.  Russell  and  Mr.  Floyd,  a 
tommunity  of  purpose  :  that  of  assuming  an  attitude  of  defence,  for 
Ibe  purfipsc  of  making  an  attack  upon  me. 

Mr.  Floyd,  in  the  p.iblication  here  alluded  to,  has  indulged  him- 
■elf  in  many  reflections  and  insinuations  against  me,  which,  having 
BO  relation  to  (he  subject  of  this  controversy,  I  deem  it  most  respect- 
ful to  the  public  to  pass  over  in  silence.  I  bear  no  enmity  to  Mr. 
Floyd.  Having  no  personal  acquaintance  with  him,  1  can  have  no 
feelings  towards  him,  other  than  those  excited  by  his  conduct  as  a 
pablic  man,  which  is  open  to  my  observation  as  mine  is  open  to 

There  had  been  a  time  when,  upon  a  critical  occasion,  in  which 
tay  public  conduct  was  not  a  little  involved,  Mr.  Floyd,  still  m^re 
wiknown  to  me  than  at  present,  had  in  the  House  of  Represent- 
atives taken  a  part  which  had  given  him  claims  to  my  esteem-r-per- 
fcaps  to  my  gratitude.  His  conduct  and  opinions  then,  were  doubt- 
less actuated  exclusively  by  public  motives,  and  without  reference 
at  all  to  me — yet  I  was  grateful  to  him  for  his  support  of  a  cause 
which  it  had  also  been  my  duty  to  defend  :  the  cause  of  a  hero, 
upon  whose  public  services  was  invoked  the  public  censure  of  bis 
country.* 

Whatever  were  his  motives  for  moving  the  first  call  for  the 
Ghent  papers,  or  the  second,  for  Mr.  Russell's  letter,  as  he  thereby 
only  exercised  his  right  as  a  representative  of  the  people,  I  could 
take  no  exception  to  it.  There  were  no  ties  of  private  friendship 
between  Mr.  Floyd  and  me,  which  made  his  case  different  from 
that  of  Mr.  Russell ;  and  if  he  had  received  his  impression  of  the 
transactions  at  Ghent  from  representations  such  as  those  of  Mr. 
Kossell's  lett^,  he  might,  without  impropriety,  move  a  call  for  the 
papers,  for  the  purpose  of  bringing  the  whole  subject  before  Con- 
gress, and  the  nation,  and  of  exposing  what  he  might  deem  to  be  my 
misconduct  in  the  transaction,  even  though  it  should  have  no  bear- 
iHg  upon  his  bill  for  the  occupation  of  Columbia  river. 

By  his  publication  in  the  Richmond  Enquirer,  he  seems  desirous 
of  being  understood  to  disclaim  any  otker  purpose  in  moving  the 

•  See  the  Debate  in  the  House  of  RepresentaUves,  on  the  Seminole  War, 
February,  1819,  Mr.  Floyd's  Speech,  I 


2H 

mat  bill— yet  Irft  dwclaimcr  is  not  explicit. 

w.AV*!lf  P;®"*''"f  •«*"«"  o^"  Congrew,  as  Chairman  of  a  Comtak- 
teeof  the  Houte  of  Reprtwntatives.  he  hud  raad«  a  report  recoaL 
mendmgthe  e.tabh«hinent  of  a  territory  at  the  mouth  of  Columbine 
mer.  He  now  states,  that  at  that  time,  in  convewal.oo  at  CI 
lo^mgs  with  some  of  his  friends,  upon  the  subject  oflhatreuoT. 

wealth  to  be  derived  from  that  trade  in  the  Canton  market  and 
the  pract.c«b,litv  of  supplying  the  valley  of  the  M^wTssipJi  w'  h  he 
manuiactures  ortbat  route,  one  gentleman  observed,  that  the  JV  i«! 
•iss  pp,  had  been  discussed  at  Ghent,  and  from  the  chiracters  of  ha 
genllemen  engaged  in  it,  there  was  a  strong  probabilitj  th^if  M 
i%d  had  that  correspondence   he  w<Hild  Sbtain  J^thingll^i 

711  i?"*^n  '"  '*""•  ^''°°  '^y"'*'.  *•«  immediately  deteiSne.l  to 
make  the  call,  rs  a  proper  mode  of  getting  the  papers,  but  alUv, 

M    If  «7'"«*J  to  postpone  the  call  until  the  next  session. 

Mr  Fleyd  has  not  informed  the  public,  who  it  was  that  made  the 
suggestion  to  him,  upon  which  he  determined  to  call  for  the  Ghent 
correspondence  ;  but  it  was  a  person  who  knew  that  the  Alississip. 

Mr  fIov? ".f^'"'**;'  ''^^^^^^'■''l^  >*>«>.  by  suggetting  this  idea  o 
Mr.Hoyd.  suTiciently  manifested  the  disposition  that  the  cor  res- 
pondence  containing  the  discussion  of  the  Mississippi  at  Ghent, 
should  be  brought  before  the  public. 

io.^K^/*'^i?'''*"'*'J^*'**i  **'"  '°'S*'t  be  an  occasion  to  obtain  this  ob- 
ject, but  where  so  much  was  known  about  the  discussion  of  the  Mis- 
sissippi at  Ghent,  other  purposes,  besides  the  occupation  of  Co.' 
lumbia  river  the  fur  trade,  or  the  Canton  market,  were  doubtless 
oontempla  ed  in  stiniulatiiig  the  call  for  the  correspondence.     I  do 

mI  Tlovi*'  K°T'''T,  °^  r"**  '"°^'''*"'  '^  tbey  ijere  partaken  by 
Mr.  Jloyd:  but  while  influenced  by  them,  he  cannot  claim  the 
privilege  of  impartiality,  with  reference  to  this  inquiry,  norshould 
he  have  appealed  to  the  public,  as  if  he  had  been  iniured  by  me 
nn'Ti'o^  »t«t'nsthe  fact,  that  the  call  of  the  House  for  Mr.  Rus.' 

hile  f     Kv  J     r?  T'^^  ^•*[-'  .*^«  eusgeslion  of  Mi,  Russell 
himself.     By  Mr.  f  loyd's  own  showing,  his  first  call  for  the  Ghent 

S^P  m';  r       VJ'  fSg^'sted  to  him.     He  does  not  deny  that  the  call 

idde?  e^r'th  Vt"'""  '"^^  'W''^  '^  »'™'  ^^'J  »•«  "igbt  have 
;„  ;! i' J  M  '  ^''^  n"  .^^'"'"S  ^"'■'^«''*> '»  the  Richmond  Enquirer, 

tha?  pajeni'        '     '  *""  '""^^'''"^  '"  ^"''  ^^  ^^^  ^'^'^^^  ^^ 

n.Jr!;^?of  ^'  now  alleged  by  Mr.  Floyd  for  his  call  of  17tb  Ja- 

nuap   1822,  could  not  lead  him  to  the  suspicion,  that  there  would 

th-i  r^  ?aT*""''%  ?  ^^^  Executive  to  furnish  all  the  documenta 

hat  could  be  useful  to  him  for  his  Columbia  river  bill ;  nor  does  t 

ndeed  appear,  that  on  the  16th  of  January,  1822,  'vhen  he  moved 

£  «nl'^-ffi  °?;  •""  «"«P«*=t«^'  o--  bad  reason  to  suspect,  there  would 
be  any  difficulty  m  obtaining  all  the  papers  upon  the  call. 

*  See  fJie  Richmond  Enquirer  of  2d  Aogutf,  1822, 


•  .  « 

fhc  tM€  MeoM  to  have  been  different  on  the  next  day.  Irfr, 
Floyd  then  proposed  to  strike  out  from  his  resolution,  the  exception 
<vf  papers,  which,  in  the  opinion  of  the  President,  it  migiit  be  im- 
proper to  disclose  ;  and  to  the  demand  for  the  correspondence,  had 
added  that  for  the  protocol. 

The  following  observations  of  Mr.  Floyd  in  this  day's  debate, 

[I7th  January^  1822,]  explaining  his  reasons  for  wishing  for  the 

whoii  correspondence,  without  excepting  even  such  parts  of  it  as  in 

the  President's  opinion  it  might  be  improper  to  disclose,  are  par- 

(kalarly  remarkable.    He  observed  "  that  the  bill  which  he  had 

•♦this  day  reported  to  the  House,  contemplated  a  considerable 

*•  change  in  the  mtercourse  with  the  Indian  tribes,  in  the  West ;  and 

**it  appeared  by  the  report  of  the  Secretary  of  War,  made  yester- 

•*  day,  that  a  great  injlutnce  was  exerciied  over  those  tribes  by  our 

••  European  neighbours  in  that  quarter.     The  correspondence  be- 

#  tween  the  commissioners  at  Ghent,  embraced  this  subject  among 

«  others,  and  he  thought  it  was  desirable  that  the  House  should  be 

**  in  possession  of  the  whole  of  it." 

Mr.  Floyd,  in  his  recent  publication,  says  that  when  the  papers 
were  communicated  to  the  House,  in  answer  to  this  call,  on  exam* 
iniog  them,  he  could  not  find  any  thing  he  wanted ;  but  that  he  ex- 
pected to  find  it  in  the  letter  of  %.  Russell,  premised  in  his  sepa- 
TutB  despatch  of  25th  December,  1814.  He  disclaims  any  inten> 
tion,  however,  of  calling  for  a  private  letter,  and  says,  that  if  by 
any  proper  act  he  could  have  prevented  this  affair,  he  would  Itave 
done  so.  Whether  he  found,  in  Mr.  Russell's  letter,  when  it  was 
communicated,  any  thing  that  he  wanted,  he  has  not  said.  There 
was  much  touching  the  value  of  the  Mississippi  river,  and  much 
about  the  influence  exercised  over  those  Indian  tribes,  by  our  Eu- 
ropean neighbours  in  that  quarter  :  the  bearing  of  it,  or  of  any  part 
of  it,  upon  Mr.  Floyd's  bill  for  the  occupation  of  Columbia  river,  is 
not  so  perceptible  as  its  bearing  upon  the  object  which  he  now 
seems  to  disclaim.  If  he  means  to  be  understood  to  say,  that  he  had 
no  other  motive  in  calling  for  that  letter  than  those  that  he  has  as- 
signed in  his  recent  publication,  I  should  only  regret  that  this  paper, 
when  obtained,  was  so  little  suited  to  answer  hi*  expectations,  or  to 
j;ive  him  the  intormation  of  which  he  was  in  pursuit. 

That  he  had  other  objects  in  view,  it  was  certainly  very  natural 
to  believe,  upon  observing  the  earnestness  with  which  he  pressed  for 
the  whole  Ghent  correspondence,  without  excepting  such  part  as 
the  President  might  think  it  improper  to  disclose ;  and  upon  com* 
jparing  I  Is  observations  in  the  debate  of  17th  January,  with  the 
eontents  of  Mr.  Russell's  letter. 

His  resolution  of  19th  April,  called  on  the  President  (if  not  in- 
jtirious  to  the  public  good)  for  any  letter  or  communication,  which 
may  have  been  received,  from  Jonathan  Russell,  after  the  signature 
ttf  the  treaty  of  Ghent,  and  written  in  conformity  to  the  indications 
contained  in  his  letter  of  26th  December,  1814.  Although  in  this 
call,  tllere  is  neither  qualification  of  the  character  of  the  letter  oc 


253 

tonmunkation,  whether  public  or  private  of  thm  /*«-  ^u*  < 

^person  by  «Ao«».  it  n.i«ht  haveV.n  r-olived  —  T  *?'  °° !J!^ 

der  the  first  call  of  17th  Jacuarv      rth«  ?!»        i  !  *""""  "."* 
first  rtnd  apron.!  rail   hi  k  \i       .^'    .      *"*  ^o**"^*'  between  the 

•nee,  and  secondly,  that  this  letter  of  Mr  R..«2ii  »k     ij  ^ 

before  Congress,  (here  cm\LTe6ly^n^^^^^^ 

gard  to  the  correspondence,  mv  wish  to  tra.SfJ  if  ^'^^  '*' 

pnrnoaf  frnm  *K«  k         A.  "'^  .'''"''  '^  gratify  him  was  the  more 

thT.!i  K«  *''?,^P«'  ^¥^  whatever  might  be  his  motive  for 
the  call,  he  would  be  convinced  there  was  none  in  the  eiZtivI 
for  conceahnent.    As  to  Mr.  Russell's  letter,  be?ore  I  S^^^J! 

jr^^VrZtr^iirr^^^^^^ 

c^^vindi^^^^^ 

Mr.  Floyd,  when  he  says  that  I  procured  Mr  Pnii«-  t^      u 
a.,  call  (of  7,h  May,)  wjch  he,  M^r.  pl^ylt/d"  U,ed  f"l' 

turned  upon  them  w.th  a  charge  of  having  caused  the  paU^t's 
death  by  omUtmg  to  administer  foxglove,  a  remedy  known  to  L 
uited  for  h.s  disease.  Thus  Mr.  Floyd,  after  moving  caU  for 
Lr.M  rV^r"'  ^"bout  excepting  even  such  as  thf  Pres  lent 
might  think  It  improper  to  disclose ;  after  moving  a  second  cSl  for 
any  Utter  or  communication,  unless  injurious  to  the  pubhc  Jood 
which  may  have  been  received  from  Mr.  Russell,  on  the  suWecT 
after  manifesting  the  utmost  impatience  for  the  papers  wrnot 
sparing  the  excitement  of  suspidons  that  they  wJuTd  "4  «rb?ed 

iirTffk  *" '  "-T  ^T'  "P^''  '"^  ^°'  concurring  wUh  him^n  the 
wish,  that  they  might  all  be  produced,  and  impute!  iTall  to^  ierire 
on  my  part  of  getting  into  the  newspapers.  ^ 

.^nlr**  "l'?*°u^^®  newspapers,  but  before  the  House  of  Reprc 
sentaUves,  that  the  motion  of  Mr.  Fuller  was  adapted  to  bring  me- 
and  It  was  at  the  call  of  Mr.  Floyd,  with  the  concurHng"m"n<i 


5Sfi4 

agency  of  Mr.  RusselU  that  I  had  been  summoned  there.  Under 
their  anipices,  I  should  have  been  introduced  like  a  convict  of  tbd 
inquisition,  with  my  sentence  upon  my  breast.  My  own  wish  was 
to  appear  with  the  accusation  against  me,  and  my  defence  for  the 
House  to  judge  upon  both.  If  Mr.  Floyd  had  then  reason  to  de- 
sist from  his  call,  I  had  the  more  reason  for  wishing  it  renewed. 

It  was  Mr.  Russell,  too,  who  chose  to  go  into  the  newspapers, 
first  by  publishing  his  triplicate  in  Philadelphia,  and  then  his  reply, 
in  the  Boston  Statesman.  It  was  with  extreme  reluctance  that  I 
followed  him  into  that  field,  and  I  took  the  earliest  opportunity  of 
withdrawing  from  it,  until  called  there  again  by  Mr.  Floyd. 

If  Mr.  Jefferson  himself,  the  patriarch  of  the  revolution,  the 
immortal  author  of  the  Declaration  of  Independence,  in  the  re- 
tirement r-f  private  life,  in  the  last  stage  of  his  illustrious  career, 
surrounded  by  the  gratitude  and  veneration  of  his  country,  justly 
thought  it  not  unworthy  of  himself,  to  meet  twice  in  the  newspa- 
pers,  the  accusations  of  a  nameless  "  Native  of  Virginia,"  because 
they  struck  at  his  honour,  I  hope  it  will  be  imputed  to  no  thii-st  for 
newspaper  contention,  if  I,  who  in  comparison  with  him  am  but  of 
yesterday,  but  holding  a  public  trust,  for  which  dishonour  is  dis- 
qualification, have  met  in  the  public  journals,  the  con  iirring  and 
persevering,  though  variously  pretexted  and  modified,  attacks  of  a 
native  of  Massachusetts  and  a  native  of  Virginia,  both  supported  by 
their  -names,  both  acts  of  men,  honoured  themselves  with  public 
confidence,  and  both  tending,  if  not  intended,  to  rob  me  of  that 
good  name,  without  which  to  me  public  trust  would  be  a  reproach 
and  exiiitence  itself  but  a  burthen. 

The  perusal  of  Mr.  Russell's  duplicate  disclosed  to  me  the  mys- 
tery  ofruiii  which  had  been  brewing  against  me,  from  the  very  day 
after  the  signature  of  the  treaty  of  Ghent.  It  was  by  representa- 
tions like  those  of  that  letter,  that  the  minds  of  my  fellow  citizens  in 
the  West,  had  for  a  succession  of  years  been  abused  and  ulcerated 
against  me.  That  letter,  indeed,  inculpated  the  whole  majority  of 
the  mission  at  Ghent,  but  subsidiary  slander  had  performed  its  part 
of  pointing  all  the  guilt,  and  fastening  all  the  responsibility  of  the 
crime  upon  me.  It  was  I  who  had  made  the  proposal,  and  Mr. 
Bayard,  after  assenting  to  it,  had  repented.  Such  were  the  tales 
which  had  been  for  years  in  circulation,  and  which  ceased  not  to 
be  told,  until  after  the  publication  of  Mr.  Russell's  letters  and  my 
remarks.  Imputations  of  motives  of  the  deepest  infamy,  were 
connected  with  these  aspersions,  conveyed  in  dark  insinuations, 
and  vouched  for  upon  pretended  ambiguous  givings  out  of  the 
dead.*  Several  of  the  public  journals  from  the  first  call  of  Mr* 
Floyd  for  the  Ghent  papers,  had  caught  enough  of  the  oracular  and 
prophetic  spirit,  to  foresee  that  it  would  result  in  my  irredeemable 
disgrace.     The  House  of  Representatives  had  called  for  Mr.  Rus- 

•  See  the  Aurora,  daily,  for  the  last  week  in  May,  and  the  Richmond  En- 
quirer of  *th  June,  1822. 


i'mm^mmm 


255 

wU'8  letter  :  Mr.  Russell  himself  had  furnished  it,  to  be  report^4 
in  answer  to  ifie  call.     Curiosity  bad  been  potioned  into  eager- 
ness for  a  sight  of  it,  and  of  that  eagerness  Mr.  Floyd  had  ex- 
hibited no  unintelligible  share.     If  his  only  object  was  to  obtain 
information  useful  to  him,  with  reference  to  the  Columbia  River  Bill, 
th?  indexes  to  his  mind,  in  the  debate  of  the  17th  of  January, 
1822,  had  mistaken  their,  direction.     If  he  had  another  objedt,  it 
would  have  been  candid  to  avow  it  then,  and  not  to  disavow  it  now, 
Mr.  Floyd  says  he  will  take  no  part  in  the  controversy  between 
Mr.  Russell  and  me.     1  should  have  had  more  reason  to  thank  Mr. 
Floyd  for  this  profession  of  impartiality,  if  it  comported  better 
either  with  the  general  tenor,  or  the  particular  import,  of  the  pub- 
lication in  which  it  is  contained.     Mr.  Floyd  must  not  be  allowed 
at  once  to  claim  the  rights  of  neutrality  and  to  practise  acts  of  en- 
mity.    The  whole  of  his  publication  i    Tull  of  hostility  to  me,  as 
inveterate  as  it  was  unprovoked  :  a  neu    al  flag  and  a  raking  broad- 
side are  but  indifferent  vouchers  for  each  other.    Mr,  Floyd  now 
comes  forward  in  this  controversy  substantially  as  an  auxiliary  to 
Mr.  Russell,  and  as  a  pretext  for  it ,  he  charges  me  with  an  asser- 
tion which  I  never  made,  that  he  m;     take  it  as  personally  offen- 
sive to  himself,  and  attack  me  under  a  colour  of  self-defence.     I 
never  gave  cause  of  oifence  to  Mr.  Floyd,  and  if  in  the  Ghent 
papers  for  his  profound  researches  touching  the  value  of  the  Mis- 
stssippi  river,  or  the  discussion  of  the  Mississippi  at  Ghent,  he 
could  not  find  any  thing  he  wanted,  the  fault  was  not  mine.     It  is 
usual  to  look  for  information  to  places  where  it  is  likely  to  he  found. 
If  an  astronomer  should  point  his  telescope  to  the  moon  in  search 
of  spots  on  the  face  of  the  sun,  it  would  not  be  surprising  if  he 
could  not  tind  any  thing  that  he  wanted. 

Mr.  Floyd  declares  that  he  will  not  either  in  public  or  in  private 
refrain  from  commenting  upon  the  public  conduct  and  opinions  of 
any  public  man,  who  may  be  thought  or  may  thin*  himself  entitled 
to  office.  He  adds  that  his  opposition  has  silways  been  political 
and  directed  by  the  ideas  he  entertains  of  the  power  which  gentle- 
men may  think  themselves  entitled  to  exercise,  under  the  constitution 
of  the  United  States.  If,  by  these  general  expressions,  Mr.  Floyd 
means  any  special  reference  to  me,  I  have  not  the  slightest  objec- 
tion to  his  commenting  upon  my  public  conduct  and  opinions,  whe- 
ther in  public  or  private,  while  he  will  con6ne  himself  to  that  ex- 
act verity,  of  which  he  has  so  sound  a  theoretic  conception.  I  am 
perfectly  wilhngeven  that  he  should  take  his  Columbia  River  Bill 
aa  the  text  for  a  comment  upon  the  discussion  of  the  Mississippi  at 
Ghent.  But  if  he  comments  upon  the  power  which  I  may  think 
•myself  entitled  to  exercise  under  the  constitution  of  the  United 
States,  from  the  ideas  which  he  entertains  of  it,  I  shall  only  ask 
the  hearers  to  examine  well  the  coincidence  between  my  thoughts 
and  his  ideas  on  the  same  subject.  He  says  he  looks  upon  the 
ronstitution  of  the  United  States  as  containing  expressed  arants  of 
power,  and  cannot  approve  any  opposite  opinion.     I  hold  no  oppo- 


256 

si^e  opiniou,  and  if  in  his  comments,  public  or  private,  Mr.  Ployd 
should  impute  to  me  that  I  do,  I  can  only  hope  that  his  hearers  will 
.  judge  of  my  opinions  as  they  are,  and  not  according  to  the  ideas  of 
them  entertained  by  Mr.  Floyd. 

Mr.  Floyd  intimates  that  he  shall  hold  me  responsible  not  oniy 
for  every  thing  that  I  say  of  him,  but  for  every  thing  that  may  be 
said  of  him  by  persons  in  official  stations  under  me.  To  the  first 
part  of  this  determination  I  have  no  objection  ;  but  he  will  excuse 
me  from  holding  myself  responsible  to  him  for  what  I  do  not  say  of 
him,  or  for  what  may  be  said  of  him  by  any  other  man.  The  offi- 
cial dependence  of  the  subordinate  officers  of  government,  neither 
in  law,  justice,  or  equity  disqualifies  them  for  the  exercise  of  the 
rights,  nor  absolves  them  from  the  responsibility  of  giving  testimo- 
ny ;  and  the  credit  due  to  that  testimony,  depends  not  upon  official 
station,  but  upon  individual  character.  I  called  upon  Mr.  Brent 
and  Mr.  Bailey  for  statements  of  facts,  material  in  the  controversy 
l^etween  Mr.  Russell  and  me,  and  known  only  to  them.  They  have 
long  held  in  the  Department,  offices  of  great  trust  and  confidence,  of- 
fices  for  which  no  other  than  men  of  perfect  integrity  and  unsullied 
reputation  could  be  qualified.  They  are  not  personally  known  to 
Mr.  Floyd  ;  and  I  do  him  the  justice  to  believe,  that  if  they  had 
been,  he  would  have  spared  some  of  his  reflections.  But  they  are 
extensively  known  to  others,  and  wherever  known,  are  respected. 

JOHN  QUINCY  ADAMS.> 


PAVIS  &  FORCE,  PRINT. 


I 


*"J.WM|l«|n,il'l|ijip.iL 


"I  II.IWWI 


BBI|W"H»11WIJH| 


•m^i: 


CONTENTS. 


urnojtvcrtotii 


Page. 
3 


Debate  in  House  of  Representatives  of  the  D.  S.  ITth  Januarr  1824. 
From  tlie  National  Intelligencer, 

CORRBSPOWDBWCB  WHICH  LBD  TO  THIS  TBEATT  OP  GHERIT 

JExtract,  from  the  Journal  of  the  House  of  Representatives  of  the  Unit- 
ed  States,  of  the  16th  and  17th  January,  1822, 

Mr.  Floyd's  Resolutions  calling  for  the  Ghent  Corres'^ndenco,.'.'.' 

Message  from  the  President  of  the  United  States  to  the  House,  trans^I! 
t,„g the  Correspondence, 2lFeby.I822. 

Report  of  the  Correspondence  to  the  President  of  the  United  States  by 
the  Secretary  of  State, , ' 

American  Note  No.  6,  in  answer  to  British  Not'eNo/v^'wNov*  I8l7' 

Project  of  a  Treaty  sent  with  the  above  Note ' 

Rritish  Noto,  No. 7, *9fi'w*",".T** 

»    .    ,    ,    '  '  • 26  Nov'r  1814. 

l-roject  of  a  Treaty  as  returned  with  this  Note 

Extract  of  a  Law  of  the  United  States,  passed  July  6. 1812. 

British  Note,No.  8, ..  .  ^    '     ^"•••/V*"' 

Protocol  of  ^onferlnce 30  Nov'r  1814, 

Protocol  of  Conference, jq^^V  J^^f' 

Protocol  of  Conference ,^„  V  .  ,  » 

American  Note,  No.  8 Z:ZZ""u^]^ 

p^rrrf^rre^e,::::"'^^ 

.        .        „,     .  '         •#..... 23Dec'rl814.     " 

American  Plenipotentiaries  to  the  Secretary  of  State  of  the 

United  States, 25n    '   1 

Mr.  Russell  to  the  Secretary  of  State-Ext*rIcI,*.*.****,*.*.'.'*25Dlc'r  ISU 

Mr.  Gallatin  to  the  Secretary  of  State [ ././sDe'r  llu 

TUB  Dt7PHCATE  lETTERS  AWD  XHE  REMAKS.  ' 

Extracts  from  the  Journal  of  the  House  of  Representatives  of  the  Unit- 

ed  States, ,o       ,  i«  . 

Mr  ri„  ^,    D      ,    .     1»  and  19.  April,  1822, 

Mr.  Floyd's  Resolution  calling  for  Mr.  Russell's  Letter 

Message  from  the  President  of  the  U.  States  to  tl.e  House.' *  May,  V8*22* 

Report  of  the  Duplicate  to  the  President  of  the  United 

States  by  the  Secretary  of  State, 3  jyj       jggg 

Extracts  from  the  Journal  of  the  House  of  Representatives' 

of  the  United  States, «       ,»„ 

' 6and7May,  1822, 

<Mr.  Fuller's  Resolution. 

Kxtract  from  the  National  rnfBiii^o«o,.,  ,.f  i-i.u  ,         ,03^ 

" c— '•'•'•  •"   ■'-ti«  June,  lozz 


13 
13 

13 

13 
14 
17 

24 

26 


43 

43 
44 
46 
47 

48 


51 

53 
56 
ST 


59 
59 
B9 

60 
61 


61 


CONTENTS. 


Page.. 
t>ebateonMr.  Fuller^s  Resolution, ..• 64 

Message  from  the  President  of  the  United  States  to  the  House,  transmit- 
ting the  Duplicate  Letters   and    the .  Remajrks  of  the  Secretary  of 

State, 7  May,  1832,    63 

Report  to  the  President  of  the  United  States  of  the  Secretary  of  State's 

Remarks, 68 

Mr.  RussclPs  Private  Letter  to  the  Sec'y  of  State.  Paris,  ll  Feb'y  1815,  6< 
Duplicate,  left  22  April,  1832,  by  Mr.  Russell  at  tlie  Department  of  State,  66 
Remarks  thereon,  by  John  Quincy  Adams 3  May,  1822,    88 

VHX  TRIPLICATB. 
Extracts  from  the  National  Gazette.    Philadelphia,  lO  and  25  May, 

1822, 114,118 

Mr.  Russell's  Reply  to  Mr.  Adams.    From  the  Boston  Statesman,  27 

June  1822, 119 

Mr.  Adams's  Rejoinder.    From  the  National  Intelligencer  of  17th  July 

and  7th  August,  1822 138,  158 

Mr.  Brent's  Statement, , 155 

Mr.  Bailey's  Statement , l56 

ITRTHER  STRICTURES   OTX  MR.    RCSSBLL^B   REFRESGNTATIONB    AND 

STATEMENTS. 

I.  Navigation  of  the  Mississippi — worthless  to  the  British, .........•••..  163 

II.  itight  to  the  Fishing  Liberties — Effect  of  War  upon  Treaties — Pecu- 

liar character  of  the  Treaty  of  1783, 182 

III.  Fishing  Liberties — Their  Value, 202 

Mr.  Lloyd's  Letter,.. 210 

Nevk'foundlandMemoiial.  From  Niles's  Register,  of  llJune,l8l4,  221 
Extracts  from  Colquhoun's   Treatise  on  the  Wealth,  Power,  and 

Resources  of  the  British  Empire, 223 

Conclusion, 229 

ArrEHDix. 

I.  Western  Commentaries, ,. 232 

Extract  from  the  Argus  of  Western  America.  Fratflcfort,  Keniucky, 

18  July,  1822 233 

Remarks  on  the  above  Extract,.. 234 

II.  Mr.  Floyd's  Letter— Richmond  Enquirer  of  27  August,  1822, 243 

III.  Mr.  Fuller's  Letter— Boston  Patriot  of  4  September,  1822, 2*7 

IV.  Mr.  Adams's  Answer  to  Mr.  Floyd's  Letter — National  Intelligencer 

f  31  August,  1822, 248 

V.  Further  Remarks  upon  Mr.  Floyd's  Letter, ...^...  248 


T"'" ■  ">■■< 


I* 


KIIUATA. 


Page  13, 
18, 
20, 
2*, 

25, 
46, 

71, 
71, 

77, 

~7, 

f8, 

86, 

87, 

108, 

117, 

12!, 

121, 

130, 

133, 

147, 

152, 

161, 

200, 

221, 


line  5,  for  "  arcady,"  read  "  already  •' 
last  line  bi,t  one,  for  "  boimdarifs,"  read  "  countries  '» 
hne  24,  for  "  article,"  read  '•  article  »         """*"". 
25,  for  "ratification,"  read  "ratifications." 
\V  [°r"«ogotintiOMs,"read  "negotiations." 
i,  from  the  bottom,  for  "  plenipotiaries," -^ead  "plei,U 
potentiaries."  ,    *  P'eni? 

20,  towards  tlie  endj  strilie  out  "the." 
2J,  for  "dependant," read  "depe.ident," 

32,  at  the  beginning  of  the  line,  add  "from." 
last  hne  but  one,  for  "  grant  to,"  read  "grant  or.'» 
Ime37,  before  "negotiation,"  add  "of the" 
31,  for  "then,"  read  "than." 
24,  for  "  only,"  read  "  ably." 
3  from  the  bottom,  for  ."rating,"  read  «catin«." 
J  from  the  bottom,  for  "oity,"re8d  "rity." 
a,  for  "conference,  read  "conference  " 

2?  '^^°";'i'^^«""'"'^'''-!:P''°P"«nty,>'read  "propriety 
■ii,  at  the  beginning,  strike  out  "  in  '»  t     t" 

12,  for  "orignal,"  read  "original." 

16,  for  "  them,"  read  "  it." 

6,  for  "9th,"  read  "8th." 

12,  for  «'24tb,"  read  "25th." 

*.  after '<oj)inioi(,''inFrii   "  iipo;,." 


